DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Applicant’s preliminary amendment filed on December 13, 2024 has been entered and made of record. Currently, claims 1-9 and 11-12 are pending.
Claim Interpretation
Claim 11 is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because it is a method claims.
Claims 1-9 are not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the recitations of “memory”, “processor” and “instructions” provide sufficient structure to perform all claimed limitations.
Claim 12 is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because it is an article of manufacture claim.
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 1-9 and 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Regarding claim 11 as a presentative claim, the 101 analysis is presented below.
Step 1: It is noted that claim 11 recites a method which is a process. Thus, claim 11 is directed to one of statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A Prong 1: Limitations (i)“performing authentication processing based on the biometric information”, (ii)“determining an authentication difficulty degree indicating a possibility that the user reaches outside the authentication area without completing the authentication processing”, and (iii)“determining output timing of a result of the authentication processing in accordance with the authentication difficulty degree” are interpreted as practically performed in the human mind. With regard to (i), it is similar to mentally perform authentication by looking at or observing face of the user and user’s ID image. With regard to (ii), it is similar to mentally look/search for or determine where the user/audient/student/attendee is in the room for identification/authentication. With regard to (iii), it is similar to memorize or determine the time spent for looking/searching for or determining where the er/audient/student/attendee is. Thus, these limitations also fall into the “mental process” grouping of abstract idea. Therefore, claim 11 recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong 2: It is noted that claim does include any additional limitation “acquiring biometric information on a user located in an authentication area” that is nothing more than data gathering and thus is insignificant extra-solution activity. The additional limitation does not amount to an integration of the judicial exception into a practical application. Therefore, claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B: The additional limitations, as pointed out in Step 2A prong 2, are nothing more that data gathering and is insignificant extra-solution activity. These additional limitations, taken individually and/or in combination, do not contribute to an inventive concept and do not amount to significant mor than the judicial exception. Therefore, claim is not a patent eligible.
Claim 1 recites an apparatus and claim 12 recites a manufacture so each of these claims falls within one of the statutory categories of invention. It is noted that each of these claims recites similar claim limitations called for in the counterpart claim 11. Thus, the advanced statements as applied to claim 11 above are incorporated herein. It is also noted that claim 1 recites additional elements “memory” and “processor” and claim 14 recites additional elements “medium” and “computer”. These additional elements “memory”, “processor”, “medium” and “computer” are recited at a high level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a conventional computer. The claims do not point to a specific improvement in computer itself. The additional elements, taken individually and in combination, do not contribute to an inventive concept. Therefore, claims 1 and 12 are also directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
The advanced statements as applied to claims 1 and 11-12 are incorporated hereinafter.
As to claim 2, limitations “determine the authentication difficulty degree, based on a moving speed velocity of the user” are interpreted as practically performed in the human mind and thus fall into the “mental process” grouping of abstract idea. Therefore, claim recites an abstract idea and does not add anything that would make it patent eligible.
As to claim 3, limitations “determine the authentication difficulty degree, based on a position of the user” are interpreted as practically performed in the human mind and thus fall into the “mental process” grouping of abstract idea. Therefore, claim recites an abstract idea and does not add anything that would make it patent eligible.
As to claim 4, limitations “determine the authentication difficulty degree, based on whether or not it is predicted that the user overlaps with another user, in a case where viewed from a sensor that acquires the biometric information” are interpreted as practically performed in the human mind and thus fall into the “mental process” grouping of abstract idea. Therefore, claim recites an abstract idea and does not add anything that would make it patent eligible.
As to claim 5, limitations “determine the authentication difficulty degree, based on whether or not the user is intentionally attempting to avoid the authentication processing” are interpreted as practically performed in the human mind and thus fall into the “mental process” grouping of abstract idea. Therefore, claim recites an abstract idea and does not add anything that would make it patent eligible.
As to claim 6, limitations “determine the authentication difficulty degree, based on a wearing item of the user” are interpreted as practically performed in the human mind and thus fall into the “mental process” grouping of abstract idea. Therefore, claim recites an abstract idea and does not add anything that would make it patent eligible.
As to claim 7, limitations “determine the authentication difficulty degree, based on at least one of a face direction, a posture, and a moving direction of the user” are interpreted as practically performed in the human mind and thus fall into the “mental process” grouping of abstract idea. Therefore, claim recites an abstract idea and does not add anything that would make it patent eligible.
As to claim 8, limitations “change an output aspect of the result of the authentication processing in accordance with a type of a determination element of the authentication difficulty degree” are interpreted as practically performed in the human mind and thus fall into the “mental process” grouping of abstract idea. Therefore, claim recites an abstract idea and does not add anything that would make it patent eligible.
As to claim 9, limitations “determine the output timing of the result of the authentication processing in accordance with a number of persons who are able to handle a user reaching outside the authentication area without completing the authentication processing, in addition to the authentication difficulty degree” are interpreted as practically performed in the human mind and thus fall into the “mental process” grouping of abstract idea. Therefore, claim recites an abstract idea and does not add anything that would make it patent eligible.
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 pre-AIA 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.
Claim(s) 1-9 and 11-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hayase et al. (WO 2021/059537 A1, referred as Hayase hereinafter; U.S. Pat. App. Pub. No. 2022/0327879 A1 to Hayase (Art of record IDS filed on 12/13/2024) servers as an English translation and all citations are referred to U.S. Pat. App. Pub. No. 2022/0327879 A1).
Regarding claim 1 as a representative claim, Hayase teaches an information processing apparatus comprising at least one memory that is configured to store instructions (see paras. [0043] – [0044] (medium 152-154) and [0173]; and at least one processor that is configured to execute the instructions to (see paras [0043] – [0044] (CPU 151)):
acquire biometric information on a user located in an authentication area (see fig. 1 and paras. [0028] – [0032] (camera 20 of biometric authentication system 1), and [0050] (acquiring captured image from camera 20 and detecting the face images of all persons included in the captured image));
perform authentication processing based on the biometric information (see paras. [0003] (face authentication is used to authenticating a person), [0005] (matching face image of a person in the captured image with registered face image registered in advance in the database), [0032] (identity confirmation of user U), and [0038] (executing biometric authentication of the user U));
determine an authentication difficulty degree indicating a possibility that the user reaches outside the authentication area without completing the authentication processing (see figure 7 and para. [0060] (face image F2 includes only a part of the face in area A2 and is not a target for trigger determination process; this implies difficulty in authentication because user with image F2 reaches outside area A2)); and
determine output timing of a result of the authentication processing in accordance with the authentication difficulty degree (see figure 6 and paras. [0076] – [0078] (step S304); figure 10 and paras. [0106] – [0108] (step S604)).
Regarding claim 2, Hayase further teaches wherein the at least one processor that is configured to execute the instructions to determine the authentication difficulty degree, based on a moving speed velocity of the user (see para. [0005]).
Regarding claim 3, Hayase further teaches wherein the at least one processor that is configured to execute the instructions to determine the authentication difficulty degree, based on a position of the user (see paras. [0005] (position) and [0035] (gaze)).
Regarding claim 4, Hayase further teaches wherein the at least one processor that is configured to execute the instructions to determine the authentication difficulty degree, based on whether or not it is predicted that the user overlaps with another user, in a case where viewed from a sensor that acquires the biometric information (see figure 8 and paras. [0062] – [0063] (image IMG02 includes four persons P1-P4; in area A2, user P1 overlaps with user P2; performing extra steps such as comparing interocular distances of P1 and P2 to determine P1 is in front of P2; P1 is then authenticated; thus, this implies the difficulty)).
Regarding claim 5, Hayase further teaches wherein the at least one processor that is configured to execute the instructions to determine the authentication difficulty degree, based on whether or not the user is intentionally attempting to avoid the authentication processing (see figure 7 and para. [0060] (face image F2 includes only a part of the face in area A2 and is not a target for trigger determination process; this implies difficulty in authentication because user with image F2 reaches outside area A2); figure 8 and paras. [0062] – [0063] (image IMG02 includes four persons P1-P4; in area A2, face image of user P2 includes a part of P2’s face image; this implies difficulty to authenticate user P2)).
Regarding claim 6, Hayase further teaches wherein the at least one processor that is configured to execute the instructions to determine the authentication difficulty degree, based on a wearing item of the user (see para. [0053] (shield and/or mask is used to cover the face so face image of the such person is not selected; this implies difficulty due to wearing shield/mask to cover person’s face)).
Regarding claim 7, Hayase further teaches wherein the at least one processor that is configured to execute the instructions to determine the authentication difficulty degree, based on at least one of a face direction, a posture, and a moving direction of the user (see paras. [0005] (position of the face of the person in the captured image; moving in the direction of the gate), and [0035] (gaze)).
Regarding claim 8, Hayase further teaches wherein the at least one processor that is configured to execute the instructions to change an output aspect of the result of the authentication processing in accordance with a type of a determination element of the authentication difficulty degree (see figures 8 (S304 = NO) and 10 (S604 = NO).
Regarding claim 9, Hayase further teaches wherein the at least one processor that is configured to execute the instructions to determine the output timing of the result of the authentication processing in accordance with a number of persons who are able to handle a user reaching outside the authentication area without completing the authentication processing, in addition to the authentication difficulty degree (see para. [0035]).
Regarding claim 11, it is noted that claim recites similar claim limitations called for in the counterpart claim 1. Thus, claim 11 is also rejected for the same reasons as applied to claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 12, it is noted that claim recites similar claim limitations called for in the counterpart claim 1. Thus, claim 12 is also rejected for the same reasons as applied to claim 1 above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
KOCHI et al. (U.S. Pat. App. Pub. No. 2021/0117655 Al) teaches a biometric authentication system (see fig. 2).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DUY M DANG whose telephone number is (571)272-7389. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday from 7:00AM to 3:00PM.
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, Amandeep Saini can be reached at 571-272-3382. 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.
DMD7/2026 /DUY M DANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2662
Prosecution Insights