CTNF 19/038,758 CTNF 82473 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Claims 1-16 are pending in this application. Information Disclosure Statement 06-52 The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 01/28/2025, 03/11/2025 & 08/08/2025. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner. Claim Objections 07-29-01 AIA Claim s 1-3 and 15-16 are objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 1 recites the limitation "a person" in line 6 and also in line 7. It is unclear if “a person” of line 7 is referring back to “a person” of line 6. Claim 1 further recites “the unauthorized authentication” in line 8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claims 15 and 16 are objected using the similar rationale as for the objection of claim 1. Claim 2 recites “a person” in line 4, it is unclear if “a person” of claim 2 is referring back to “a person” of claim 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 3 recites “the second data” in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim . Appropriate correction is required. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 07-04-01 AIA 07-04 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 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite a device, method and medium for acquiring data, authenticating a person, performing a first determination of unauthorized authentication attempts, and a second determination of whether the person is suspicious (with optional monitoring, video/behavior analysis, notifications, and service controls such as gate opening, ticketing, online learning or payment). This is a mental process (observation, evaluation, judgement) and/or method of organizing human activity (authentication, security screening and access control). The additional elements (generic processor/memory, imaging units, non-transitory medium) are recited at a high level of generality and amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using well-understood, routine, and conventional computer components. There is no improvement to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology. The claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Accordingly, claims 1-16 do not recite an inventive concept sufficient to transform the abstract idea into patent eligible subject matter. Therefore, claims 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-23-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nechyba et al. (US 2014/0016837 A1) (hereinafter, “Nechyba”) and further in view of Hayase et al. (US 2022/0327879 A1) (hereinafter, “Hayase”) . As to claim 1, Nechyba discloses an information processing device comprising: at least one processor; and a memory coupled to the at least one processor, the memory storing instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to: acquire first data (“… the anti-spoofing programs may cause computing device 102 to capture multiple facial images of a user who attempts to access functionalities controlled by computing device 102.” -e.g., see, [0054]; herein, first data acquired as multiple facial images from imaging unit, see also, [0119]), authenticate a person based on the first data (“Facial recognition module 242 may grant or deny matches to facial images received by computing device 200 (e.g., using front-facing camera 214) for facial recognition authentication purposes. In examples, facial recognition module 242 may compare a facial image to an enrollment image or other (e.g., mathematical) representation of an authorized user's face.” -e.g., see, [0119]; herein, facial recognition match on the acquired first data (i.e. facial image)), perform a first determination of whether a person to be authenticated by the authentication is attempting the unauthorized authentication (“… anti-spoofing module 220 may determine that a user is attempting to spoof the facial recognition programs running on computing device 200 , or that the captured facial images provide an inconclusive indication of the requested liveness gesture series.” -e.g., see, [0110]; see also: “… anti-spoofing module 220 may determine that the user has performed the liveness gesture satisfactorily for anti-spoofing purposes.” -e.g., see, [0112]; see also: “… an unauthorized user may attempt to unlock a computing device using "spoofing" techniques. To cause erroneous authentication by spoofing, an unauthorized user may present a facial image of an authorized user for capture by the computing device. For example, an unauthorized user may present to the device a printed picture of the authorized user's face or obtain a video or digital image of an authorized user on a second computing device (e.g., by pulling up an authorized user's profile picture from a social networking website).” -e.g., see, [0026]; herein, first determination is mapped to detection of spoof/unauthorized authentication attempt during facial recognition). Nechyba does not explicitly disclose perform, in a case where it is determined that the unauthorized authentication is being attempted in the first determination, a second determination of whether the person to be authenticated is a suspicious person. However, in an analogous art, Hayase discloses perform, in a case where it is determined that the unauthorized authentication is being attempted in the first determination (“The first determination unit 100B determines, based on the captured image, whether or not a condition for starting a determination process of whether or not the person is permitted to pass through a gate is satisfied.” -e.g., see, [0111]), a second determination of whether the person to be authenticated is a suspicious person (“The second determination unit 100D executes the determination process based on a determination result by the first determination unit 100B and a matching result by the matching unit 100C.” -e.g., see, [0111]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Nechyba to incorporate the teaching of Hayase in order to provide layered security that not only blocks spoof attempts but also performs a second determination for suspicious/not-permitted individuals in real-world access scenarios, improving overall fraud prevention. As to claims 15 and 16, these are rejected using the similar rationale as for the rejection of claim 1. As to claim 2, Nechyba in view of Hayase discloses the information processing device according to claim 1, Hayase further discloses wherein the memory storing further instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to: monitor a person who has been determined to be attempting the unauthorized authentication by the first determination, and determine whether the person who has been determined to be attempting the unauthorized authentication by the first determination is a suspicious person based on a monitoring result in the second determination (“The detection unit 100A detects biometric information of a person from a captured image being input. The first determination unit 100B determines, based on the captured image , whether or not a condition for starting a determination process of whether or not the person is permitted to pass through a gate is satisfied. The matching unit 100C matches the biometric information with a registered biometric information in parallel with the process of the first determination unit 100B. The second determination unit 100D executes the determination process based on a determination result by the first determination unit 100B and a matching result by the matching unit 100C .” -e.g., see, Hayase: [0111]; herein, post-first determination monitoring and suspicious/not permitted determination via result). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Nechyba to incorporate the teaching of Hayase in order to provide layered security that not only blocks spoof attempts but also performs a second determination for suspicious/not-permitted individuals in real-world access scenarios, improving overall fraud prevention. As to claim 3, Nechyba in view of Hayase discloses the information processing device according to claim 1, Hayase further discloses wherein the memory storing further instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to: acquire the second data, wherein in the second determination, it is determined whether the person who has been determined by the first determination to be attempting the unauthorized authentication is a suspicious person based on the second data (“The detection unit 100A detects biometric information of a person from a captured image being input. The first determination unit 100B determines, based on the captured image , whether or not a condition for starting a determination process of whether or not the person is permitted to pass through a gate is satisfied. The matching unit 100C matches the biometric information with a registered biometric information in parallel with the process of the first determination unit 100B. The second determination unit 100D executes the determination process based on a determination result by the first determination unit 100B and a matching result by the matching unit 100C .” -e.g., see, Hayase: [0111]; herein, second data (captured image) used in conditional suspicious/not-permitted determination). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Nechyba to incorporate the teaching of Hayase in order to provide layered security that not only blocks spoof attempts but also performs a second determination for suspicious/not-permitted individuals in real-world access scenarios, improving overall fraud prevention. As to claim 4, Nechyba in view of Hayase discloses the information processing device according to claim 3, Hayase further discloses wherein video data is acquired as the second data from at least one imaging unit (“Next, the management server 10 (the tracking unit 12) issues a unique tracking ID for each detected person (step S103). When the captured image is acquired continuously, the tracking unit 12 in the present example embodiment determines whether or not the person is the same person based on the position of the person in the captured image. Then, the tracking unit 12 gives the same tracking ID when it is regarded as the same person. Thus, the tracking unit 12 tracks the same person over a plurality of captured images.” -e.g., see, Hayase: [0051], see also, [0050]; herein, acquires a captured image from the camera 20). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Nechyba to incorporate the teaching of Hayase in order to provide layered security that not only blocks spoof attempts but also performs a second determination for suspicious/not-permitted individuals in real-world access scenarios, improving overall fraud prevention. As to claim 5, Nechyba in view of Hayase discloses the information processing device according to claim 1, Nechyba further discloses wherein video data is acquired as the first data from imaging unit capable of imaging at least a face of the person (“… computing device 200 may capture multiple facial images of a user who attempts to gain access to functionalities controlled by computing device 200 by facial recognition authentication.” -e.g., see, Nechyba: [0106]). As to claim 6, Nechyba in view of Hayase discloses the information processing device according to claim 1, Hayase further discloses wherein, in the second determination, it is determined whether the person who has been determined to be attempting the unauthorized authentication is a suspicious person based on a behavior of the person who has been determined to be attempting the unauthorized authentication (“The first determination unit 100B determines, based on the captured image, whether or not a condition for starting a determination process of whether or not the person is permitted to pass through a gate is satisfied.” -e.g., see, Hayase: [0111]; herein, behavior/image based determination in second stage (not permitted =suspicious). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Nechyba to incorporate the teaching of Hayase in order to provide layered security that not only blocks spoof attempts but also performs a second determination for suspicious/not-permitted individuals in real-world access scenarios, improving overall fraud prevention. As to claim 7, Nechyba in view of Hayase discloses the information processing device according to claim 1, Hayase further discloses wherein the memory storing further instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to: perform, in a case where the person who has been determined to be attempting the unauthorized authentication in the second determination is determined to be a suspicious person, perform a predetermined notification (“… the gate control unit 19 outputs a gate opening/closing signal based on the result of the determination process performed by the gate opening/closing determination unit 18, but the determination may be performed by further combining other conditions. For example, the gate control unit 19 may control the opening and closing of the gate based on the result of the determination process in the gate opening/closing determination unit 18 and the identification information acquired from a medium (e.g., an IC card for authentication) held by the person.” -e.g., see, Hayase: [0116]; see also: “… when the management server 10 (the trigger determination unit 14) transmits a control signal for displaying on a screen a determination target person of gate passage permission/rejection who satisfies the trigger condition (step S110) to the notification device 40, the process returns to the step S101.” -e.g., see, [0065]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Nechyba to incorporate the teaching of Hayase in order to provide layered security that not only blocks spoof attempts but also performs a second determination for suspicious/not-permitted individuals in real-world access scenarios, improving overall fraud prevention. As to claim 8, Nechyba in view of Hayase discloses the information processing device according to claim 1, Hayase further discloses wherein the memory storing further instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to: perform control such that a first service is executed regardless of the determination result of the first determination (“… the gate control unit 19 outputs a gate opening/closing signal based on the result of the determination process performed by the gate opening/closing determination unit 18, but the determination may be performed by further combining other conditions. For example, the gate control unit 19 may control the opening and closing of the gate based on the result of the determination process in the gate opening/closing determination unit 18 and the identification information acquired from a medium (e.g., an IC card for authentication) held by the person.” -e.g., see, Hayase: [0116]; herein, first service (gate) regardless of first determination). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Nechyba to incorporate the teaching of Hayase in order to provide layered security that not only blocks spoof attempts but also performs a second determination for suspicious/not-permitted individuals in real-world access scenarios, improving overall fraud prevention. As to claim 9, Nechyba in view of Hayase discloses the information processing device according to claim 8, Hayase further discloses wherein the first service is at least one of opening and closing a gate, issuing a ticket for entry, and starting online learning (“… the gate control unit 19 outputs a gate opening/closing signal based on the result of the determination process performed by the gate opening/closing determination unit 18, but the determination may be performed by further combining other conditions. For example, the gate control unit 19 may control the opening and closing of the gate based on the result of the determination process in the gate opening/closing determination unit 18 and the identification information acquired from a medium (e.g., an IC card for authentication) held by the person.” -e.g., see, Hayase: [0116]; herein, gate opening/closing as first service). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Nechyba to incorporate the teaching of Hayase in order to provide layered security that not only blocks spoof attempts but also performs a second determination for suspicious/not-permitted individuals in real-world access scenarios, improving overall fraud prevention. As to claim 10, Nechyba in view of Hayase discloses the information processing device according to claim 8, Hayase further discloses wherein a second service is controlled to be executed according to the determination result of in the first determination (“… a second determination unit that executes the determination process based on a determination result by the first determination unit and a matching result by the matching unit.” -e.g., see, Hayase: [0007]; herein, second service controlled according to first determination result). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Nechyba to incorporate the teaching of Hayase in order to provide layered security that not only blocks spoof attempts but also performs a second determination for suspicious/not-permitted individuals in real-world access scenarios, improving overall fraud prevention. As to claim 11, Nechyba in view of Hayase discloses the information processing device according to claim 8, Hayase further discloses wherein, in a case where it is determined that the unauthorized authentication is being attempted in the first determination, control is performed to execute control of payment as a second service (“… a second determination unit that executes the determination process based on a determination result by the first determination unit and a matching result by the matching unit.” -e.g., see, Hayase: [0007]; see also, [0116]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Nechyba to incorporate the teaching of Hayase in order to provide layered security that not only blocks spoof attempts but also performs a second determination for suspicious/not-permitted individuals in real-world access scenarios, improving overall fraud prevention. As to claim 12, Nechyba in view of Hayase discloses the information processing device according to claim 10, Hayase further discloses wherein the memory storing further instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to: execute a third service to unlock the second service, and perform, in a case where it is determined that the person is attempting the unauthorized authentication in the first determination, but it is not determined that the person is a suspicious person in the second determination, control to execute the third service (“The third processing group G3 is a module that executes gate passage determination process based on two processing results in the first processing group G1 and the second processing group G2. The third processing group G3 includes the gate opening/closing determination unit 18 and the gate control unit 19.” -e.g., see, Hayase: [0039]; herein, gate opening/third service on non-suspicious after first determination; see also, abstract, [0116]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Nechyba to incorporate the teaching of Hayase in order to provide layered security that not only blocks spoof attempts but also performs a second determination for suspicious/not-permitted individuals in real-world access scenarios, improving overall fraud prevention. As to claim 13, Nechyba in view of Hayase discloses the information processing device according to claim 1, Hayase further discloses wherein the memory storing further instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to: perform control to execute a first service regardless of a determination result by the first determination, and perform control of payment as a second service according to the determination result of the first determination or the second determination (“… the gate control unit 19 outputs a gate opening/closing signal based on the result of the determination process performed by the gate opening/closing determination unit 18, but the determination may be performed by further combining other conditions. For example, the gate control unit 19 may control the opening and closing of the gate based on the result of the determination process in the gate opening/closing determination unit 18 and the identification information acquired from a medium (e.g., an IC card for authentication) held by the person.” -e.g., see, Hayase: [0116]; herein, first service regardless, conditional second/payment). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Nechyba to incorporate the teaching of Hayase in order to provide layered security that not only blocks spoof attempts but also performs a second determination for suspicious/not-permitted individuals in real-world access scenarios, improving overall fraud prevention. As to claim 14, Nechyba in view of Hayase discloses the information processing device according to claim 8, Hayase further discloses wherein the memory storing further instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to: perform, in a case where the first service is an initiation of online learning, recording an attendance based on the second determination as a second service (“… determines, based on the captured image, whether or not a condition for starting a determination process of whether or not the person is permitted to pass through a gate is satisfied .” -e.g., see, Hayase: [0111]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Nechyba to incorporate the teaching of Hayase in order to provide layered security that not only blocks spoof attempts but also performs a second determination for suspicious/not-permitted individuals in real-world access scenarios, improving overall fraud prevention. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SUMAN DEBNATH whose telephone number is (571)270-1256. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri; 9:00am-5:00pm. 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, Farid Homayounmehr can be reached at 571-272-3739. 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. SUMAN DEBNATH Patent Examiner Art Unit 2495 /S.D/Examiner, Art Unit 2495 /JEFFERY L WILLIAMS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2495 Application/Control Number: 19/038,758 Page 2 Art Unit: 2495 Application/Control Number: 19/038,758 Page 3 Art Unit: 2495 Application/Control Number: 19/038,758 Page 4 Art Unit: 2495 Application/Control Number: 19/038,758 Page 5 Art Unit: 2495 Application/Control Number: 19/038,758 Page 6 Art Unit: 2495 Application/Control Number: 19/038,758 Page 7 Art Unit: 2495 Application/Control Number: 19/038,758 Page 8 Art Unit: 2495 Application/Control Number: 19/038,758 Page 9 Art Unit: 2495 Application/Control Number: 19/038,758 Page 10 Art Unit: 2495 Application/Control Number: 19/038,758 Page 11 Art Unit: 2495 Application/Control Number: 19/038,758 Page 12 Art Unit: 2495 Application/Control Number: 19/038,758 Page 13 Art Unit: 2495 Application/Control Number: 19/038,758 Page 14 Art Unit: 2495 Application/Control Number: 19/038,758 Page 15 Art Unit: 2495 Application/Control Number: 19/038,758 Page 16 Art Unit: 2495 Application/Control Number: 19/038,758 Page 17 Art Unit: 2495 Application/Control Number: 19/038,758 Page 18 Art Unit: 2495
Prosecution Insights