DETAILED ACTION
The instant application having Application No. 18/872115 filed on September 5, 2025 is presented for examination by the examiner.
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 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.
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 .
Internet Communications
Applicant is encouraged to submit a written authorization for Internet communications (PTO/SB/439, found at http://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/sb0439.pdf) in the instant patent application to authorize the examiner to communicate with the applicant via email. The authorization will allow the examiner to better practice compact prosecution. The written authorization can be submitted via one of the following methods only: (1) Central Fax, which can be found in the Conclusion section of this Office action; (2) regular postal mail; (3) EFS WEB; or (4) the service window on the Alexandria campus. EFS web is the recommended way to submit the form since this allows the form to be entered into the file wrapper within the same day (system dependent). Written authorization submitted via other methods, such as direct fax to the examiner or email, will not be accepted. See MPEP § 502.03.
Applicant is also encouraged to contact the Examiner for an Interview, should the Applicant determine that clarifying and further illustrating the distinguishing features of the instant application may further the prosecution.
Oath/Declaration
The applicant’s oath/declaration has been reviewed by the examiner and is found to conform to the requirements prescribed in 37 C.F.R. 1.63.
Information Disclosure Statement
As required by M.P.E.P. 609(C), the applicant’s submission of the Information Disclosure Statement is acknowledged by the examiner and the cited references have been considered in the examination of the claims now pending. As required by M.P.E.P. 609(C), a copy of the PTOL-1449 initialed and dated by the examiner is attached to the instant office action.
Drawings
The applicant’s drawings submitted are acceptable for examination purposes.
Priority
As required by M.P.E.P. 201.14(c), acknowledgement is made of applicant’s claim for priority based on applications filed on June 10, 2022 (JP2022-094622).
Claim Analysis – 35 USC § 112 (f)
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: “acquisition unit”, “score calculation unit”, “reliability unit”, and “continued processing determination unit” in claims 1-14 and “integration determination unit” in claims 8-9 and 13.
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.
Since the claim limitation(s) invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, claim(s) 1-14 has/have been interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification that achieves the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. A review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation: The units are generally mentioned in paragraph 7; however, no specific details are given regarding the structure of the units or the algorithm that the units perform. Therefore, the claim is rejected under 112(b) for failing to clearly link or associate the disclosed structure to the claimed function such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure is used to perform the claimed function. Please also see the 112(b) rejection below for further details.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claims 1-7, 11, and 14-15 recite determining how “reliable” an authentication method is. The term “reliable” in the claims is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “reliable” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. For example, what one person considers as reliable may be vastly different from what another person considers as reliable.
Dependent claims 8-10 and 12-13 are also rejected for the same reasons as cited above and for being dependent on a previously rejected base claim.
Claim limitations “acquisition unit”, “score calculation unit”, “reliability unit”, and “continued processing determination unit” in claims 1-14 and “integration determination unit” in claims 8-9 and 13 invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
The examiner has cited particular examples of 35 U.S.C. 112 rejections above. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the applicant check the claims for further 35 U.S.C. 112 rejections in the event that it was inadvertently missed by the examiner to advance prosecution.
The Examiner has noted significant issues supra as to the pending claims under 35 U.S.C. 112. Presently, the pending claims do not adequately reflect what the disclosed invention is. The following prior art rejections are based upon the examiner’s best interpretation of the claims. In light of the precedence set forth in In re Steele, 305 F.2d 859, 862 (CCPA 1962) and In re Wilson, 424 F.2d 1382, 1385 (CCPA 1970), the Examiner applies cited art in accordance with a position as best understood in the context of the claims and the invention as a whole to expedite compact prosecution. Such interpretations of the claims versus the cited art cannot be used as a basis for overcoming the objections or rejections set forth supra. Any claim not objected or rejected in view of art does not ascribe allowable subject matter, but remains pending and rejected under their respective titles supra.
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 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Claims 1 and 15 recite acquiring biometric information and surrounding environment information, calculating a score during a biometric authentication based on the biometric information, determining how reliable the biometric information is based on the surrounding environment information, and determining whether or not to perform a second biometric authentication based on the score and reliability.
These limitations, as drafted, are a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, is an abstract idea drawn to performing a mental process such as concepts performed in the human mind or by hand but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than performing a biometric authentication, nothing in the claim precludes the steps from merely being the performance of a mental process. For example, but for the biometric authentication, acquiring biometric information and surrounding environment information, calculating a score during a biometric authentication based on the biometric information, determining how reliable the biometric information is based on the surrounding environment information, and determining whether or not to perform a second biometric authentication based on the score and reliability in the context of the claims encompasses the performance of the steps by a mental process. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performing the abstract idea of a mental process but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim does not appear to recite any additional elements. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does 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 claim does not appear to recite any additional elements. The claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 2-14 are also rejected for the same reason as cited above for not reciting any additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kim (US 2019/0347391).
As per claims 1 and 15, Kim discloses An authentication device comprising:
an acquisition unit configured to acquire at least first biometric information of a person to be authenticated used for first biometric authentication and first surrounding environment information at the time of acquiring the first biometric information (Kim, Figure 8A and associated texts such as paragraphs 164-198 (specifically paragraphs 165-166), paragraphs 12, and claim 1, teaches acquiring biometric information to authenticate a user. Kim, paragraphs 14, teaches monitoring context information such as ambient illuminance, ambient noise, ambient temperature, etc…);
a score calculation unit configured to calculate a score of the first biometric authentication using the first biometric information (Kim, Figure 8A and associated texts such as paragraphs 164-198 (specifically paragraphs 165-166 and 178-182), paragraphs 12 and 15 and claim 1, teaches comparing the biometric information with stored/registered biometric information to generate a matching score.)
a reliability determination unit configured to determine reliability of the first biometric information from the first surrounding environment information (Kim, Figure 8A and associated texts such as paragraphs 164-198 (specifically paragraphs 166-172), paragraphs 14 and claim 1, teaches monitoring context information such as ambient illuminance, ambient noise, ambient temperature, etc… As shown above, in the 35 USC 112 section, it is unclear and relative on how reliable an authentication method can be.); and
a continued processing determination unit configured to determine whether to perform second biometric authentication using second biometric information different from the first biometric information based on the score of the first biometric authentication and the reliability of the first biometric information (Kim, Figure 8A and associated texts such as paragraphs 164-198 (specifically paragraphs 192-194), paragraphs 12-20 and claim 1, teaches determining to perform a second biometric authentication based on the score and the context information. As shown above, in the 35 USC 112 section, it is unclear and relative on how reliable an authentication method can be.)
As per claim 2, Kim discloses The authentication device according to claim 1, wherein when the score of the first biometric authentication is less than a first threshold and the reliability of the first biometric information is equal to or greater than a third threshold, the continued processing determination unit determines an authentication result of the person to be authenticated as first determination that the person to be authenticated is not a target person, and ends the authentication of the person to be authenticated without performing the second biometric authentication (Kim, Figure 8A and associated texts such as paragraphs 164-198, paragraphs 12-20 and claims 1 and 6-9, teaches performing a second authentication or not based on multiple thresholds.)
As per claim 3, Kim discloses The authentication device according to claim 1, wherein when the score of the first biometric authentication is equal to or greater than a second threshold and the reliability of the first biometric information is equal to or greater than a fourth threshold, the continued processing determination unit determines an authentication result of the person to be authenticated as second determination that the person to be authenticated is a target person, and ends the authentication of the person to be authenticated without performing the second biometric authentication (Kim, Figure 8A and associated texts such as paragraphs 164-198, paragraphs 12-20 and claims 1 and 6-9, teaches performing a second authentication or not based on multiple thresholds.)
As per claim 4, Kim discloses The authentication device according to claim 1, wherein when the score of the first biometric authentication is equal to or greater than the first threshold and is less than the second threshold or the score of the first biometric authentication is less than the first threshold, and the reliability of the first biometric information is less than a third threshold, the continued processing determination unit determines an authentication result of the person to be authenticated as third determination, and determines to further perform the second biometric authentication (Kim, Figure 8A and associated texts such as paragraphs 164-198, paragraphs 12-20 and claims 1 and 6-9, teaches performing a second authentication or not based on multiple thresholds. Kim, paragraph 142, teaches requiring a sequential authentication. As shown above, in the 35 USC 112 section, it is unclear and relative on how reliable an authentication method can be.)
As per claim 5, Kim discloses The authentication device according to claim 4, wherein when the authentication result is the third determination, the continued processing determination unit further performs the second biometric authentication using biometric information that is expected to have high reliability (Kim, Figure 8A and associated texts such as paragraphs 164-198, paragraphs 12-20 and claims 1 and 6-9, teaches performing a second authentication or not based on multiple thresholds. Kim, paragraph 142, teaches requiring a sequential authentication. As shown above, in the 35 USC 112 section, it is unclear and relative on how reliable an authentication method can be.)
As per claim 6, Kim discloses The authentication device according to claim 1, wherein when the score of the first biometric authentication is equal to or greater than a second threshold and the reliability of the first biometric information is less than a fourth threshold, the continued processing determination unit determines an authentication result of the person to be authenticated as fourth determination, and determines to further perform the second biometric authentication (Kim, Figure 8A and associated texts such as paragraphs 164-198, paragraphs 12-20 and claims 1 and 6-9, teaches performing a second authentication or not based on multiple thresholds. Kim, paragraph 142, teaches requiring a sequential authentication.)
As per claim 7, Kim discloses The authentication device according to claim 1, wherein the continued processing determination unit determines an authentication result of the person to be authenticated as a third determination when the score of the first biometric authentication is equal to or greater than a first threshold and less than a second threshold or the score of the first biometric authentication is less than the first threshold, and the reliability of the first biometric information is less than a third threshold, determines an authentication result of the person to be authenticated as fourth determination when the score of the first biometric authentication is equal to or greater than a second threshold and the reliability of the first biometric information is less than a fourth threshold, and determines to further perform the second biometric authentication in a case of the third determination and the fourth determination (Kim, Figure 8A and associated texts such as paragraphs 164-198, paragraphs 12-20 and claims 1 and 6-9, teaches performing a second authentication or not based on multiple thresholds. Kim, paragraph 142, teaches requiring a sequential authentication. As shown above, in the 35 USC 112 section, it is unclear and relative on how reliable an authentication method can be.)
As per claim 8, Kim discloses The authentication device according to claim 7, further comprising: an integration determination unit configured to determine that the person to be authenticated is a target person when both the authentication result of the first biometric authentication using the first biometric information and the authentication result of the second biometric authentication using the second biometric information are the third determination or the fourth determination, and when a total value of the scores of the first biometric authentication and the second biometric authentication is equal to or greater than a predetermined value (Kim, Figure 8A and associated texts such as paragraphs 164-198, paragraphs 12-20 and claims 1 and 6-9, teaches performing a second authentication or not based on multiple thresholds. Kim, paragraph 142, teaches requiring a sequential authentication.)
As per claim 9, Kim discloses The authentication device according to claim 8, wherein when both the authentication result of the first biometric authentication using the first biometric information and the authentication result of the second biometric authentication using the second biometric information are the third determination or the fourth determination, and the total value of the scores of the respective biometric authentications is less than the predetermined value, the integration determination unit determines that the person to be authenticated is not the target person (Kim, Figure 8A and associated texts such as paragraphs 164-198, paragraphs 12-20 and claims 1 and 6-9, teaches performing a second authentication or not based on multiple thresholds. Kim, paragraph 142, teaches requiring a sequential authentication.)
As per claim 10, Kim discloses The authentication device according to claim 1, wherein the continued processing determination unit determines an execution order of the first biometric authentication and the second biometric authentication based on the first surrounding environment information (Kim, Figure 8A and associated texts such as paragraphs 164-198, paragraphs 12-20 and claims 1 and 6-9, teaches performing a second authentication or not based on multiple thresholds. Kim, paragraph 142, teaches requiring a sequential authentication.)
As per claim 11, Kim discloses The authentication device according to claim 10, wherein the acquisition unit acquires the second biometric information of the person to be authenticated used for the second biometric authentication and second surrounding environment information at the time of acquiring the second biometric information, and the continued processing determination unit starts from the first biometric authentication or the second biometric authentication corresponding to a higher one of the reliability of the first biometric information and the reliability of the second biometric information based on the first surrounding environment information and the second surrounding environment information acquired in advance by the acquisition unit (Kim, Figure 8A and associated texts such as paragraphs 164-198, paragraphs 12-20 and claims 1 and 6-9, teaches performing a second authentication or not based on multiple thresholds. Kim, paragraph 142, teaches requiring a sequential authentication. As shown above, in the 35 USC 112 section, it is unclear and relative on how reliable an authentication method can be.)
As per claim 12, Kim discloses The authentication device according to claim 1, wherein the first biometric information is imaging data of a face, fingerprint data, or utterance voice data of the person to be authenticated (Kim, paragraph 7, teaches biometric authentication using fingerprint, face, voice, iris, retina, blood vessels, etc…)
As per claim 13, Kim discloses The authentication device according to claim 8, wherein the integration determination unit calculates a false acceptance ratio of the person to be authenticated based on the authentication result of the first biometric authentication and the authentication result of the second biometric authentication (Kim, claim 7, teaches calculating a false acceptance rate.)
As per claim 14, Kim discloses The authentication device according to claim 1, wherein the reliability determination unit calculates the reliability of the first biometric information based on a face direction of the person to be authenticated, an illumination condition, a facial expression, an utterance length, the number of phonemes, an image quality, or a fingerprint acquisition area (Kim, Figure 8A and associated texts such as paragraphs 164-198 (specifically paragraphs 166-172), paragraphs 14 and claim 1, teaches monitoring context information such as ambient illuminance, ambient noise, ambient temperature, etc…)
Related Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure includes:
Sun (CN 114332905) – teaches performing biometric multimodal fusion identification method.
Tokutome (JP 2007234323) – teaches performing biometric authentication.
Ohashi (EP 3848258) – teaches performing biometric authentication and an additional non-biometric authentication.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN B KING whose telephone number is (571)270-7310. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 10AM-6PM EST.
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, Yin-Chen Shaw can be reached on 5712728878. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/John B King/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2498
Prosecution Insights