DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to an application filed on April 9, 2025, in which claims 1 through 12 are pending, and ready for examination.
Acknowledgement is made of Applicant’s claim for benefit as a 371 National Stage Application of PCT/JP2022/037937, filed on October 11, 2022.
Acknowledgement is made of Applicant’s preliminary amendment filed on April 9, 2025.
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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 2, 5-7, and 10 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites, “A detection device comprising to”.
The foregoing appears to be grammatically incorrect.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 1, 2, 5-7, and 10 each recite “user himself/herself”.
It appears that the use of the term(s) “himself/herself” in this context is unnecessary, as the claim also recites “a person other than the user”, which serves to distinguish that “person” from the “user”. Accordingly, the recited “user himself/herself”, can instead simply recite a/the “user”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 1, 5, and 6 each recite, “…an abnormality degree with respect to the keystroke information of free typing of the user himself/herself by [unsupervised] machine learning with respect to the keystroke information of free typing of the user himself/herself…”.
It appears that the portion of the recitation(s) reproduced above in bold and italics is redundant and unnecessary, and can be eliminated from the claim(s) without materially affecting the claim scope.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 1, 5, and 6 each recite, “the calculated abnormality degree”.
It appears that the claim(s) should recite, “the calculated typing abnormality degree”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-12 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, 5, and 6 each recite, “the keystroke information of the detection target”.
There is insufficient explicit antecedent basis for this element in the claim(s). Specifically, there are two types of “keystroke information” previously recited in the claim(s), and thus it is not clear to which on this element refers, due to the lack of explicit antecedent basis.
Claims 1, 5, and 6 each recite, “the typing of the detection target”. There is insufficient explicit antecedent basis for this element in the claim(s); this rejection is related to the rejection immediately above regarding “the keystroke information of the detection target”, in that it is not explicitly clear to which previously recited element(s) this recitation refers.
Claims 1, 5, and 6 each recite, “output[ting] a detection result of the abnormality”.
This recitation of “the abnormality” renders the claim(s) indefinite because it is not explicitly clear to which of previously recited “abnormality” this element refers.
Claims 2-4 and 7-12 are each dependent upon one of claims 1, 5, or 6, and are therefore rejected under the same rationale based upon that dependency.
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 1-4 are rejected as the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim 1 purports to be directed to a “device”. However, the claim does not appear to comprise any actual components, at most reciting a tangential “machine learning model” which, under a broad yet reasonable interpretation, is merely software. Thus, claim 1 can be reasonably interpreted as recited software per se. A claim that recites no more than software, logic, or a data structure (i.e., an abstraction) does not fall within any statutory category. In re Warmerdam, 33 F.3d 1354,1361 (Fed. Cir. 1994). Significantly, "[a]bstract software code is an idea without physical embodiment." Microsoft Corp. v. AT& T Corp., 550 U.S. 437, 449 (2007). Manipulation of data utilizing a computer program (software), no matter its function, is nothing more than the representation of an algorithm or group of algorithms, conceptually no different from a list of steps written down with pencil and paper for execution by a human being. See In re Ferguson, 558 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (quoting Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 67 (1972)). The subject matter of claims permitted within 35 U.S.C. 101 must be a machine, a manufacture, a process, or a composition of matter. "[T]he four categories [of §101] together describe the exclusive reach of patentable subject matter. If the claim covers material not found in any of the four statutory categories, that claim falls outside the plainly expressed scope of §101 even if the subject matter is otherwise new and useful." In re Nuijten, 500 F.3d 1346, 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2007); accord In re Ferguson, 558 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2009).
Claims 2-4 are each dependent from claim 1, fail to remedy the issue(s) noted above with regard to claim 1 under this title, and are therefore also rejected under the same rationale as claim 1, based upon that dependency.
Examiner’s Remark(s)
MPEP §2143.03 states, in relevant part:
A claim limitation which is considered indefinite cannot be disregarded. If a claim is subject to more than one interpretation, at least one of which would render the claim unpatentable over the prior art, the examiner should reject the claim as indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph (see MPEP §706.03(d)) and should reject the claim over the prior art based on the interpretation of the claim that renders the prior art applicable. Ex parte Ionescu, 222 USPQ 537 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1984) (Claims on appeal were rejected on indefiniteness grounds only; the rejection was reversed and the case remanded to the examiner for consideration of pertinent prior art.). Compare In re Wilson, 424 F.2d 1382, 165 USPQ 494 (CCPA 1970) (if no reasonably definite meaning can be ascribed to certain claim language, the claim is indefinite, not obvious) and In re Steele, 305 F.2d 859,134 USPQ 292 (CCPA 1962) (it is improper to rely on speculative assumptions regarding the meaning of a claim and then base a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 on these assumptions) (emphasis added).
MPEP §2176.06 states, in relevant part:
All words in a claim must be considered in judging the patentability of a claim against the prior art. In re Wilson, 424 F.2d 1382, 165 USPQ 494 (CCPA 1970). The fact that terms may be indefinite does not make the claim obvious over the prior art. When the terms of a claim are considered to be indefinite, at least two approaches to the examination of an indefinite claim relative to the prior art are possible… where there is a great deal of confusion and uncertainty as to the proper interpretation of the limitations of a claim, it would not be proper to reject such a claim on the basis of prior art. As stated in In re Steele, 305 F.2d 859, 134 USPQ 292 (CCPA 1962), a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 should not be based on considerable speculation about the meaning of terms employed in a claim or assumptions that must be made as to the scope of the claims.
It is noted that in view of the issue(s) of indefiniteness set forth above, and 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), no prior art or double patenting rejections have been set forth herein. However, any claim not explicitly rejected herein under applicable prior art or double patenting titles does not necessarily ascribe allowable subject matter.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: See PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to J. Brant Murphy whose telephone number is (571)272-6433. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8am - 4pm.
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, Amir Mehrmanesh can be reached at 571-270-3351. 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.
/J. BRANT MURPHY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2435
June 19, 2026
Prosecution Insights