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 .
Response to Amendments
This communication is in response to the amendments filed on 23 June 2026:
Claims 1-2 and 6 are amended.
Claims 7-10 are canceled.
Claims 1-6 are pending.
Response to Arguments
In response to Applicant’s remarks filed on 23 June 2026:
a. Applicant’s arguments regarding the objection to claims 2-5 have been fully considered and are deemed fully persuasive. The objection on claims 2-5 have been withdrawn.
b. Applicant’s arguments regarding the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection on claim 8 has been fully considered and is deemed fully persuasive in view of the amendments. The 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection on claim 8 has been withdrawn.
c. Applicant’s arguments that the cited art fails to disclose or suggest “acquire a first image that is a face image of the user stored in the property, by using the password, wherein the first image is stored in a memory of the property and is read from the memory of the property by using the password” has been fully considered but is deemed moot in view of the new grounds of rejection presented in this Office Action.
d. Applicant’s arguments that the cited art fails to disclose or suggest “disable the password set for the property in response to a failure in the face authentication” regarding claim 2 has been fully considered but is deemed not-persuasive. Applicant’s attention is directed to Jagtap, FIG. 3, which depicts password lockout policies to different attributes. Applicant’s attention is further directed to Jagtap, Paragraph [0036], see “…each password lockout policy can be associated with, or mapped to, a separate set of attribute values…”, where “password lockout policy” is analogous to disabling the password in response to a failure in a previous authentication (e.g., face authentication). Face authentication, passwords, PINs, are well known in the art. The mere fact that Jagtap is disabling a password for the property in response to exceeding a policy threshold (e.g., failure to put in correct password 3 times, failed face authentication, etc.) qualifies Jagtap as analogous art.
e. Applicant’s arguments that the cited art fails to disclose or suggest “generate the password by combining property information acquired from the property and biometric information acquired from the user” regarding claim 5 has been fully considered but is deemed not-persuasive. Applicant’s attention is directed to Eisen, Paragraph [0138], see “…One or more nonce factors…may be used to form a set of nonce data 401. Nonce factors may include various types of data collected about a state of the imaging device and/or a state of the captured image data”, where “state of the imaging device” is being read as comprising property information and where “state of the captured image” is being read as comprising biometric information acquired from the user. The state of the imaging device comprises property information (from the property) in the broadest reasonable interpretation, as does the “state of the captured image” comprising biometric information acquired from the user. These two combined are used for generating the nonce, which is a substantial part of generating the password. Therefore, the Examiner believes Eisen adequately teaches the above claimed limitation.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1 and 3-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eisen et al. (U.S. PGPub. 2021/0279316), hereinafter Eisen, in view of Eckel (U.S. Patent 10,332,191).
Regarding claim 1, Eisen teaches An information processing apparatus (Eisen, Paragraph [0010], see “…The system comprises: a server in communication with a user device”) comprising:
at least one memory that is configured to store instructions (Eisen, Paragraph [0010], see “…a memory for storing a set of software instructions”); and
at least one processor that is configured to execute the instructions to (Eisen, Paragraph [0010], see “…one or more processors configured to execute the set of software instructions”):
acquire a password set for a property of a user (Eisen, Paragraph [0260], see “…Nonce data combined with the static token can be obtained and transmitted from the user device to the authentication server system and/or the third-party entity directly or indirectly. The user device information (e.g., user device identifier) may also be transmitted to the authentication server system and/or the third-party entity for verification”, where “Nonce data combined with the static token” is being read as comprising a password, which is acquired for a property of a user (e.g., user device));
acquire a second image that is a face image of the user by imaging a face of the user (Eisen, Paragraph [0169], see “…The identification data/information may be identity of the user recognized by facial biometrics. For instance, by comparing the extracted facial traits/landmarks to a prestored facial traits/landmarks of the user, identity of the user may be retrieved if a match is determined”, where a second image that is a face image of the user is acquired by imaging a face of the user in order to compare it to a prestored image (e.g., first image)); and
perform face authentication of the user by collating/verifying the first image with the second image (Eisen, Paragraph [0131], see “…Any suitable face recognition algorithm…may be used to compare the input facial image with the facial image related to the user which is requiring the authentication”, which is being read as performing face authentication of the user by collating/verifying the first image (e.g., facial image) with the second image (e.g., input facial image)).
Eisen does not teach the following limitation(s) as taught by Eckel: acquire a first image that is a face image of the user stored in the property, by using the password, wherein the first image is stored in a memory of the property and is read from the memory of the property by using the password (Eckel, Column 5, Lines 47 – 48, see “…the user device 110 may be configured to request input of a password or pin to access the digital ID…”, wherein the “digital ID” is analogous to comprising the first image being a face image of the user, which is stored in a memory of the property (e.g., user device) and is read/acquired from the memory of the user device by using a password) (Eckel, Column 12, Lines 36 – 37, see “…The digital ID 210 may include an image of the user…”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the techniques disclosed of Eisen, by implementing techniques of the first image being stored in a memory of the user device and is read from the memory by using a password, disclosed of Eckel.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to implement techniques for an information processing apparatus, comprising of the first image being stored in a memory of the user device and is read from the memory by using a password. This allows for better security management by protecting the image against unauthorized physical access by requiring a password to access it. Eckel is deemed as analogous art due to the art disclosing techniques of the first image being stored in a memory of the user device and is read from the memory by using a password (Eckel, Column 5, Lines 47 – 48).
Regarding claim 3, Eisen as modified by Eckel teaches The information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the at least one processor that is configured to execute the instructions to:
generate the password based on property information acquired from the property (Eisen, Paragraph [0030], see “…User identity information may be provided based on a physical token, such as a machine readable secure identity token (e.g., barcode on the user’s ID card))”, where the password is generated based on property information acquired from the property (e.g., barcode on the user’s ID card)) (Eisen, Paragraph [0065], see “The nonce data may include the data related to a state of an imaging device and a state of captured image data. The data may be collected at the time an image of a visual token is captured, processed and analyzed for authentication…all of the collected data may be used to generate nonce data”, which is being read as generating the password (e.g., comprised within the nonce data) based on property information acquired from the property (e.g., all of the collected data may be used to generate nonce data)); and
acquire the password generated (Eisen, Paragraph [0013], see “…capturing image data of a physical token using a user device; collecting nonce data…”, where collecting nonce data is being read as acquiring the password generated).
Regarding claim 4, Eisen as modified by Eckel teaches The information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the at least one processor that is configured to execute the instructions to:
generate the password based on biometric information acquired from the user (Eisen, Claim 1, see “…collecting nonce data comprising a characteristic of the image data that is unique to the user device at a moment in time during which the nonce data is collected”, which is being read as generating the password (e.g., comprised within the nonce) based on biometric information acquired from the user); and
acquire the password generated (Eisen, Claim 1, see “…collecting nonce data…”, is being read as acquiring the password generated).
Regarding claim 5, Eisen as modified by Eckel teaches The information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the at least one processor that is configured to execute the instructions to:
generate the password by combining property information acquired from the property and biometric information acquired from the user (Eisen, Paragraph [0138], see “…One or more nonce factors…may be used to form a set of nonce data 401. Nonce factors may include various types of data collected about a state of the imaging device and/or a state of the captured image data”, where “state of the imaging device” is being read as comprising property information and where “state of the captured image” is being read as comprising biometric information acquired from the user); and
acquire the password generated (Eisen, FIG. 7, see “702” and “704”, which is acquiring the password generated (e.g., nonce data)).
Regarding claim 6, the claim is rejected under the same reasoning as claim 1.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eisen, in view of Eckel, in further view of Jagtap et al. (U.S. PGPub. 2015/0199500), hereinafter Jagtap.
Regarding claim 2, Eisen as modified by Eckel do not teach the following limitation(s) as taught by Jagtap: The information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the at least one processor that is configured to execute the instructions is further configured to
disable the password set for the property in response to a failure in the face authentication (Jagtap, FIG. 3, which depicts password lockout policies to different attributes) (Jagtap, Paragraph [0036], see “…each password lockout policy can be associated with, or mapped to, a separate set of attribute values…”, where “password lockout policy” is analogous to disabling the password in response to a failure in a previous authentication (e.g., face authentication)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the techniques disclosed of Eisen, and techniques disclosed of Eckel, by implementing techniques of disabling the password in response to a failure in an authentication, disclosed of Jagtap.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to implement techniques for an information processing apparatus, comprising of disabling the password in response to a failure in an authentication. This allows for better security management by instantly stopping brute-force attacks when a previous authentication fails. Jagtap is deemed as analogous art due to the art disclosing techniques of disabling the password in response to a failure in an authentication (Jagtap, Paragraph [0036]).
Conclusion
Applicant’s amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office Action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RODMAN ALEXANDER MAHMOUDI whose telephone number is (571)272-8747. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 11:00am – 7:00pm.
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, Philip Chea can be reached on (571) 272-3951. 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.
/RODMAN ALEXANDER MAHMOUDI/Examiner, Art Unit 2499
Prosecution Insights