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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 07/14/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83 because, for Fig. 2, mere numerical and abbreviated references on abstract boxes do not sufficiently aid in the understanding of the invention; descriptive labels are required. The objected reference numerals include: 20.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 5, 8-11, 12, 14-15 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 1, 14, 15, recite “determine a probability” and “based on a result of a determination”. It is unclear if these steps/elements are related. The Examiner recommends reciting “making a determination of a probability that…” in claim 1, line 4 and reciting “based on a result of the determination” in claim 1, line 9, with changes made appropriately in claims 14, 15.
Claim 5 recites “the one area, wherein, the at least one processor”. This appears to be grammatically improper. The Examiner recommends deleting the comma after “wherein” to recite “the one area, wherein[[,]] the at least one processor”.
Claims 8-11 recite “a result of a determination”. It is unclear if it relates or is distinct from “a result of a determination” established in parent claim 1.
Claim 12 recites “to notify information indicating the result…”. This appears to be grammatically improper. The Examiner recommends reciting “to generate notification information indicating the result…”. See instant application specification paragraph [0118].
Claim 15 is objected to under 37 CFR 1.75(i) because the claim sets forth elements/steps of “determining…”, “acquiring…”, “changing…”, “authenticating…”. However, the elements/steps are not separated by a line indentation.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 9, 11-12, 14-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Jones-McFadden et al. (USP App Pub 2017/0195307; hereinafter Jones).
Regarding claim 1, An authentication system (Jones: abstract, “computer program product for assessing network authentication requirements based on situational instance”) comprising:
at least one memory configured to store instructions (Jones: paragraph [0004], “The system also typically includes a module stored in the at least one memory device comprising executable instructions that when executed”); and
at least one processor configured to execute the instructions (Jones: paragraph [0004], “executable instructions that when executed cause the processing device and hence the system to perform one or more functions described below”) to:
determine a probability (Jones: paragraph [0081], “the system may determine that the user is currently within … the predefined physical area” i.e., It is well known and common knowledge in the art that a probability is a likelihood in a range from [0,1]. The system of has determined that the user is within the physical area. Therefore, the system has determined the probability is 1. See MPEP 2131.03(I)) that a target person passes through a one area (Jones: FIG. 6, step 602) of a plurality of areas (Jones: claim 7, “the map comprising geographic areas associated with the historical exposure events”) based on target person information of the target person (Jones: paragraph [0081], “the system may determine the user's current location using any of the methods disclosed herein or any other methods known in the art”);
acquire (Jones: paragraph [0085], “the user may be enabled to modify the features only after successful validation of current security features provided by the user”; paragraph [0083], “(ii) the user's current security features do not meet the escalated level of authentication required for the predefined physical area … The system may unlock/enable the features, automatically, in response to determining that the preceding conditions…(ii) are no longer valid”) an image including the one area (Jones: paragraph [0060], “A high level of authentication may be associated with authentication credential types like biometric information (…facial recognition…and the like) … the authentication level may be escalated using a combination of the authentication credential types”; See References Cited);
change an authentication condition (Jones: paragraph [0085], “Therefore, the system may enable the user to modify the current security features based on the determined new security features, as illustrated by block 612”; paragraph [0085], “Typically, the one or more types of new security features render the user less susceptible to exposure events”) for biometric authentication using the image (Jones: paragraph [0086], “biometrics… may be used as types of identity authentication”; paragraph [0060], “A high level of authentication may be associated with authentication credential types like biometric information (…facial recognition…and the like) … the authentication level may be escalated using a combination of the authentication credential types”) based on a result of a determination (Jones: paragraph [0085], “the user may be enabled to modify the features only after successful validation of current security features provided by the user”); and
authenticate the target person (Jones: paragraph [0086], “As alluded to previously, the user is typically required to authenticate their identity in order to complete a user activity (e.g., an electronic transaction)”) based on the image using the changed authentication condition (Jones: paragraph [0062], “Based on determining the escalated authentication requirement, the system may present the escalated authentication requirement to the user, via the user mobile device, at block 212”; paragraph [0086], “biometrics… may be used as types of identity authentication”; paragraph [0060], “biometric information (…facial recognition…and the like)”).
Regarding claim 2, Jones teaches the authentication system according to claim 1, wherein
the target person information includes position information indicating a position of the target person (Jones: paragraph [0081], “the system may determine the user's current location using any of the methods disclosed herein or any other methods known in the art”), and the at least one processor is configured to execute the instructions to determine whether or not the target person is in the one area or in a peripheral area surrounding the one area based on the position information (Jones: paragraph [0081], “The system may determine that the user is proximate to or will be proximate to a predefined physical area associated with a historical exposure event, at block 602”).
Regarding claim 3, Jones teaches the authentication system according to claim 1, wherein
the target person information includes action information indicating an action of the target person (Jones: paragraph [0054], “The activity data may comprise information regarding the situational attributes associated with the historical exposure events. In some embodiments, the historical exposure events may be similar to the user activities described previously that have been identified to be associated with exposure or misappropriation” i.e., misappropriation is an action), and the at least one processor is configured to execute the instructions to determine whether or not the target person has acted in the one area or a peripheral area surrounding the one area based on the action information (Jones: paragraph [0081], “After determining the user's current and/or potential future locations, the system may compare these locations with that of historical exposure events in the activity data to determine if one or more user locations are within event geographic areas of a historical exposure event”).
Regarding claim 4, Jones teaches the authentication system according to claim 1, wherein
the target person information includes movement information of the target person (Jones: paragraph [0081], “the system may determine that the user will be proximate to a predefined physical area associated with a historical exposure event at a certain future time or during a future time period”), and the at least one processor is configured to execute the instructions to determine whether or not the target person passes through the one area based on the movement information (Jones: paragraph [0081], “the system may analyze user's upcoming appointments, calendars, social media information, travel patterns, routes on navigation applications, search history and purchase transactions to determine future locations of the user”).
Regarding claim 9, Jones teaches the authentication system according to claim 1, wherein
the at least one processor is configured to execute the instructions to change an authentication threshold (Jones: paragraph [0081], “FIG. 6, illustrates a high level process flow 600 for strengthening security features based on the user's situational instance”; paragraph [0085], “Typically, the one or more types of new security features render the user less susceptible to exposure events”) for the biometric authentication (Jones: paragraph [0086], “biometrics… may be used as types of identity authentication”; paragraph [0060], “biometric information (…facial recognition…and the like)”) based on a result of a determination (Jones: paragraph [0085], “the user may be enabled to modify the features only after successful validation of current security features provided by the user”).
Regarding claim 11, Jones teaches the authentication system according to claim 1,
wherein the at least one processor is configured to execute the instructions to notify the target person to perform a specific operation (Jones: paragraph [0027], “a user activity may refer to a purchase of goods or services, a return of goods or services, a payment transaction, a credit transaction, or other interaction involving a user's bank account”; paragraph [0048], “the user seeks to initiate a purchase (user activity)”) based on a result of authentication (Jones: paragraph [0086], “As alluded to previously, the user is typically required to authenticate their identity in order to complete a user activity (e.g., an electronic transaction)”) and a result of a determination (Jones: paragraph [0085], “The system may then determine one or more types of new security features that would meet the escalated level of authentication, at block 610”).
Regarding claim 12, Jones teaches the authentication system according to claim 11,
wherein the at least one processor is configured to execute the instructions to notify information indicating the result of the authentication (Jones: claim 5, “cause the at least one processing device to lock a display of the mobile device until … (ii) the positive authentication response is received” i.e., releasing the lock on a display is a visual notification that indicates the positive authentication response).
Re. claims 14-15, they recite analogous limitations as claim 1 and therefore are rejected for the same reasons.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jones in view of Lyman et al. (USP App Pub 2015/0058941; hereinafter Lyman).
Regarding claim 5, Jones teaches the authentication system according to claim 1, wherein the authentication system comprises a beacon corresponding to the one area (Jones: paragraph [0080], “beacon devices”),
wherein,
the at least one processor is configured to execute the instructions to:
determine that there is a probability that the target person passes through the one area in a case where the target person information indicates that the beacon and a terminal device held by the target person are connected (Jones: paragraph [0080], “the system may determine the user's location based on the interaction between the mobile device and other external devices like multilateration of radio signals between radio towers of the network and the mobile device, triangulation of the device location based on the device's communication with a cellular network, interaction of the mobile device with beacon devices/transmitters via near field communication or electromagnetic waves/sound waves and the like”), and…
Jones does not teach …change the authentication condition by lowering a threshold included in the authentication condition.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Lyman does teach …change the authentication condition by lowering a threshold (Lyman: claim 4, “wherein the reduced authentication requirement permits automatic access to the device or a service utilizing the device without passwords”) included in the authentication condition (Lyman: claim 1, “determine whether the device is within the secured location based on the environmental information; and activate a reduced authentication requirement for accessing the device or a service utilizing the device when the device is within the secured location”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the location estimation system of Jones to incorporate the teachings of Lyman to reduce authentication requirements when the location is estimated to be in a secured area. The motivation for doing so is avoid having excess security requirements in secured spaces (Lyman: paragraph [0004], “there is a need for a system or method that allows a user to easily gain access to a device or an online service when the user is in a secured location, in which excess security requirement are not needed”).
Claim(s) 6-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jones in view of Un et al. (USP App Pub 2013/0260782; hereinafter Un).
Regarding claim 6, Jones teaches the authentication system according to claim 1, wherein
the at least one processor is configured to execute the instructions to … that the target person passes through the one area from the target person information (Jones: paragraph [0081], “the system may determine that the user is currently within … the predefined physical area”).
Jones does not teach … calculate a determination score indicating a probability…
However, in the same field of endeavor, Un does teach … calculate a determination score indicating a probability (Un: paragraph [0068], “The device location determination component 706 is configured to identify the mobile device location 756 based at least on the grid space likelihood score, where at least a portion of the system 700 is implemented, at least in part, using a computer-based processing unit 750 … if the first grid space likelihood score comprises a higher probability that the mobile device is located within the first grid-space as compared to the probability of the mobile device being located within the second grid space as indicated by the second grid space likelihood score, the first grid-space may be selected as the location of the mobile device”)…
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the location determining system of Jones (Jones: paragraph [0081], “the system may determine the user's current location using any of the methods disclosed herein or any other methods known in the art”) to incorporate the teachings of Un to calculate a likelihood score for the area of location. The motivation for doing so is to calculate the area that is most probable for the location (Un: paragraph [0058], “a highest grid space likelihood score may comprise a highest probability, where the grid space distance/signal distance combination (e.g., difference) for the respective one or more APs of a grid-space is lowest (e.g., the grid space and signal distances are similar, indicating that the mobile device sent the signals from a similar location identified by the grid space distance)”).
Regarding claim 7, Jones teaches the authentication system according to claim 6, wherein
at least one processor is configured to execute the instructions to change the authentication conditions (Jones: paragraph [0085], “Therefore, the system may enable the user to modify the current security features based on the determined new security features, as illustrated by block 612”; FIG. 6, step 612 occurs based on step 602 executing) based on the determination score (Un: paragraph [0068], “if the first grid space likelihood score comprises a higher probability that the mobile device is located within the first grid-space as compared to the probability of the mobile device being located within the second grid space as indicated by the second grid space likelihood score, the first grid-space may be selected as the location of the mobile device”; Jones: paragraph [0081], “at block 602 … the system may determine that the user is currently within … the predefined physical area”).
The motivation for combining references for claim 7 is the same motivation stated in the rejection of claim 1.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jones in view of Nagao et al. (USP App Pub 2009/0060293; hereinafter Nagao).
Regarding claim 8, Jones teaches the authentication system according to claim 1, wherein
the at least one processor is configured to execute the instructions to … to be used for the biometric authentication … based on a result of a determination (Jones: paragraph [0060], “A high level of authentication may be associated with authentication credential types like biometric information (…facial recognition…and the like) … the authentication level may be escalated using a combination of the authentication credential types”).
Jones does not teach ... select one or more registered face images … from plurality of registered face images…
However, in the same field of endeavor, Nagao does teach ... select one or more registered face images (Nagao: paragraph [0075], “If the highest degree of coincidence is higher than the current identification threshold, the face recognition unit 124 determines that the user being recognized is a registered user corresponding to the registered data with the highest degree of coincidence and outputs a user ID associated with the registered data with the highest degree of coincidence”) … from plurality of registered face images (Nagao: paragraph [0049], “feature data included in registered data for one or more registered users stored in the registered data storage unit 120 to calculate the degree of coincidence between the respective sets of feature data. Then, the face recognition unit 124 determines whether or not the user to being recognized, whose facial image 3 has been captured, is any one of the registered users based on the degree of coincidence with respect to the registered data as obtained from the above comparison and on the recognition parameter (for example, the identification threshold) stored in the recognition parameter storage unit 122, and identifies the user if the user is recognized as a registered user”)…
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the biometric facial recognition system of Jones to incorporate the teachings of Nagao to use a dataset of facial features for registered users. The motivation for doing so is to enable a plurality of users to register into the biometric facial recognition system (Nagao: paragraph [0062], “a plurality of users can be registered in one cellular telephone 1 by performing the user registration processing for a plurality of users”).
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jones in view of Wisniewski (USP App Pub 2023/0153242).
Regarding claim 10, Jones teaches the authentication system according to claim 1, wherein the at least one processor is configured to execute the instructions …
Jones does not teach …to change an order of registered face images to be compared in a case where performing the biometric authentication based on a result of a determination.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Wisniewski does teach …to change an order of registered face images to be compared (Wisniewski: paragraph [0051], “At operation 260, the electronic device may store the digital representation of the biometric in the data in the local cache for a time window. This may include adding the digital representation of the biometric to a storage location of the data in the local cache”; paragraph [0004], “Upon obtaining a digital representation of a biometric, the identification station may first check if the digital representation of the biometric corresponds to data in the local cache” i.e., once a face is in the cache, it is checked first; FIG. 2, cache is checked in step 230 before performing biometric check once there is a cache miss; paragraph [0006], “the biometric includes at least a portion of a face”) in a case where performing the biometric authentication based on a result of a determination (Wisniewski: paragraph [0049], “At operation 240, the electronic device may determine whether or not the biometric is present in the data in a local cache. For example, the electronic device may determine a similarity of the digital representation of the biometric to the data in the local cache”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the face recognition system of Jones to incorporate the teachings of Wisniewski to use a biometric cache for recognized faces. The motivation for doing so is to improve system response times (Wisniewski: paragraph [0027], “system response times may be significantly improved”).
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jones in view of Chan (USP App Pub 2014/0351596).
Regarding claim 13, Jones teaches the authentication system according to claim 11, wherein the at least one processor is configured to execute the instructions …, the result of the determination (Jones: paragraph [0085], “The system may then determine one or more types of new security features that would meet the escalated level of authentication, at block 610”), and the result of the authentication (Jones: paragraph [0086], “As alluded to previously, the user is typically required to authenticate their identity in order to complete a user activity (e.g., an electronic transaction)”).
Jones does not teach …to notify status information indicating a status of the target person based on ticket information of the target person…
However, in the same field of endeavor, Chan does teach …to notify status information indicating a status of the target person (Chan: paragraph [0371], “whether the authentication succeeds or fails, preferably, the transmitter 430 of the authentication server 400 transmits an authentication result to the authentication front-end computer system 300 through the communication network 120. Preferably, the authentication result comprises the success of the authentication or the failure of the authentication.”) based on ticket information of the target person (Chan: paragraph [0375], “The user payment account identifier of the user payment account in the payment embodiment is changed to the ticket identifier of the ticket in the ticket authentication embodiment”)…
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the authentication system of Jones to incorporate the teachings of Chan to use ticket authentication. The motivation for doing so is to use the ticket to prove that the user has certain rights (Chan: paragraph [0021], “A ticket is usually given by an operator (e.g., a merchant) to a user so as to prove that the operator gives the user one or more rights and/or identities”).
References Cited
Nagao et al. (USP App Pub 2009/0060293; hereinafter Nagao) is cited to show that it is common knowledge and well known in the prior art that facial recognition extracts facial data from an image, and the image includes facial features and surrounding areas (Nagao: paragraph [0041], “The feature extraction unit 116 extracts user facial feature data from the facial image 3 input from the image determination unit 112. The facial feature data is information representing facial features (for example, the arrangement of eyes, nose, and mouth, as well as an image (template) of the surrounding area) useful for personal identification”; FIG. 2, the image taken for facial recognition includes image data of the surrounding area).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ADITYA SRIRAM whose telephone number is (703)756-1715. The examiner can normally be reached M-Sa: 9:00 AM - 5:00 PM MST or PST.
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, William Korzuch can be reached at (571) 272-7589. 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.
/A.S./ Examiner, Art Unit 2491
/WILLIAM R KORZUCH/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2491
Prosecution Insights