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 .
Examiner Notes
All claims were reviewed for compliance with 35 U.S.C. §112 and 35 U.S.C. §101 (as set forth in MPEP 2106).
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendment filed 28 May 2025 claims 1-5, 7, and 8. Claim 10 has been cancelled. Applicant’s amendment has been fully considered and entered.
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 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.
Claims 1-2, 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ozono, WO 2020/179315. Referring to claim 1, Ozono discloses an authentication system including a face authentication device that includes a processor, and a storage unit storing a control program executed by the processor (Page 11, first full paragraph), which meets the limitation of a terminal comprising at least one memory storing a set of instructions, and at least one processor configured to execute the set of instructions. The face authentication device receives a face verification response from a verification server, which was selected from among a group of servers (Page 9, first paragraph), that indicates the success of a face authentication process (Page 29, third to last paragraph: face authentication device reads on the claimed terminal; verification server reads on the claimed service server), which meets the limitation of receive, from a service server of a service provider selected by a user from among a plurality of service providers and having succeeded in biometric authentication of the user, an authentication success notification. Once authentication has been performed, the authentication history stored on the face authentication device is updated (Page 11, second full paragraph & Page 11, last paragraph – Page 12, first paragraph), which meets the limitation of perform control related to a history of successful biometric authentication by the service provider, in accordance with reception of the authentication success notification.
Referring to claim 2, Ozono discloses that the verification response includes the matching result, a matching score, and a user code (Page 27, first paragraph), which meets the limitation of the authentication success notification includes detailed information of an authentication processing that has been successfully performed by the service provider, and a status of authentication information used for the biometric authentication by the service provider. Once authentication has been performed, the authentication history stored on the face authentication device is updated (Page 11, second full paragraph & Page 11, last paragraph – Page 12, first paragraph), which meets the limitation of wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the set of instructions to generate a history related to the biometric authentication of the user by storing the detailed information of the authentication processing and the status of the authentication information.
Referring to claim 7, Ozono discloses an authentication system include a face authentication device that includes a processor, and a storage unit storing a control program executed by the processor (Page 11, first full paragraph), which meets the limitation of a system comprising a terminal owned by the user, wherein the terminal comprising at least one memory storing a set of instructions, and at least one processor configured to execute the set of instructions. The face authentication device receives a face verification response from a verification server, which was selected from among a group of servers (Page 9, first paragraph), that indicates the success of a face authentication process (Page 29, third to last paragraph: face authentication device reads on the claimed terminal; verification server reads on the claimed service server), which meets the limitation of a service server of a service provider selected by a user from among a plurality of service providers and having succeeded in biometric authentication of the user, receive an authentication success notification from the service server. Once authentication has been performed, the authentication history stored on the face authentication device is updated (Page 11, second full paragraph & Page 11, last paragraph – Page 12, first paragraph), which meets the limitation of perform control related to a history of successful biometric authentication by the service provider, in accordance with reception of the authentication success notification.
Referring to claim 8, Ozono discloses that a registration device acquires the captured face image data such that the face image data is provided to the server to register the user face image (Page 5, first paragraph – third paragraph: registration device reads on the claimed control server), which meets the limitation of a control server performing management related to the biometric authentication for each of the plurality of service providers. The face authentication device receives a face verification response from a verification server, which was selected from among a group of servers (Page 9, first paragraph: Examiner notes that the source of the notification does not receive patentable weight because the functional requirement of the claim is met in that the terminal receives the notification. Such notification receipt is functionally performed by the claimed terminal in the same manner irregardless of the notification source), that indicates the success of a face authentication process (Page 29), which meets the limitation of wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the set of instructions to receive the authentication success notification via the control server.
Referring to claim 9, Ozono discloses an authentication system include a face authentication device that receives a face verification response from a verification server, which was selected from among a group of servers (Page 9, first paragraph), that indicates the success of a face authentication process (Page 29, third to last paragraph: face authentication device reads on the claimed terminal; verification server reads on the claimed service server), which meets the limitation of receiving, from a service server of a service provider selected by a user from among a plurality of service providers and having succeeded in biometric authentication of the user, an authentication success notification. Once authentication has been performed, the authentication history stored on the face authentication device is updated (Page 11, second full paragraph & Page 11, last paragraph – Page 12, first paragraph), which meets the limitation of performing control related to a history of successful biometric authentication by the service provider, in accordance with reception of the authentication success notification.
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 3, 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ozono, WO 2020/179315, in view of Bin Shamsuddin, WO 2020/231249.
Referring to claim 3, Ozono discloses that the face authentication device displays an indication of the matching result (Figure 18C & Page 29, second fully paragraph), which meets the limitation of the at least one processor is further configured to execute the set of instructions to display a message including [the detailed information of the authentication processing and] the status of the authentication information, each time the authentication success notification is received.
Ozono does not specify display the matching score and user code. Bin Shamsuddin discloses an authentication verification display that includes a verification result along with a matching score and user id (Page 16, lines 21-25), which meets the limitation of the at least one processor is further configured to execute the set of instructions to display a message including the detailed information of the authentication processing and the status of the authentication information, each time the authentication success notification is received. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the displayed information of Ozono to have included the matching score and user code because Bin Shamsuddin suggests that such a display embodiment represents one of a finite number of possible display embodiments that could have been implemented by one of ordinary skill in the art with a reasonable expectation of success (Bin Shamsuddin: Page 16, lines 21-25).
Referring to claim 4, Ozono discloses that the authentication history information can be displayed (Page 12, last paragraph – Page 13, first paragraph), which meets the limitation of the at least one processor is further configured to execute the set of instructions to display the history related to the biometric authentication stored, in accordance with a predetermined operation performed by the user.
Claims 5, 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ozono, WO 2020/179315.
Referring to claim 5, Ozono discloses that the face authentication machine acquires a face image of user using a camera (Page 4, second to last paragraph) such that the face image of the user is stored in a storage unit (Page 28, first full paragraph & Page 26, last full paragraph), which meets the limitation of wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the set of instructions to store original biometric information, which serves as an original source of the authentication information used for the biometric authentication. A registration device acquires the captured face image data such that the face image data is provided to the server to register the user face image (Page 5, first paragraph – third paragraph: registration device reads on the claimed control server), which meets the limitation of transmit, [in response to a request from a control server] performing a management related to the biometric authentication for each of the plurality of service providers, the stored original biometric information to the service server of the service provider selected by the user, via the control server.
Ozono does not specify the registration device acquisition was the result of a push or pull operation. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for registration device of Ozono to have acquired the face image from the face authentication device in response to a request by the registration device for the face image because face image acquisition as a result of a pull operation represents one of a finite number of possible implementations that could have been utilized by one of ordinary skill in the art with a reasonable expectation of success.
Referring to claim 6, Ozono discloses that the face image data is utilized to extract facial features for comparison against the registered face image data (Page 26, last paragraph – Page 27, first paragraph), which meets the limitation of wherein the original biometric information is a face image, and the authentication information is a feature value generated from the face image.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Xia, U.S. Patent No. 10,657,242, discloses a proximity-based access control system utilizing multiple authentication factors such as biometrics.
Hammad, U.S. Patent No. 11,574,312, discloses a secure authentication that utilizes authentication histories.
Fisher, U.S. Publication No. 2015/0120560, discloses transaction processing that utilizes authentication histories.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BENJAMIN E LANIER whose telephone number is (571)272-3805. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th: 5:30-4:00.
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, Alexander Lagor can be reached at 5712705143. 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.
/BENJAMIN E LANIER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2437
