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 .
Claims 1-13 are pending.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: "to estimate the mental and physical state form the mental and physical information" should be "to estimate the mental and physical state from the mental and physical information". 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.
Claims 1-13 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 1 and 13 recite the limitations “the acquired biometric information” and “the biometric information acquired,” respectively, which lack antecedent basis. For examination purposes, these limitations are interpreted as “the measured biometric information” and “the biometric information measured,” respectively. Claims 2-11 depend on claim 1, therefore they inherit this rejection.
Claims 1, 12, and 13 recite the limitations “the individual living body” and “the propriety of authentication” which lack antecedent basis. For examination purposes, these limitations are interpreted as “an individual living body” and “a propriety of authentication,” respectively. Claims 2-11 depend on claim 1, therefore they inherit this rejection.
Claim 8 recites the limitation “the requirement of the execution” which lacks antecedent basis. For examination purposes, this limitation is interpreted as “a requirement of the execution.” Claim 11 depends on claim 8, therefore it inherits this rejection.
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.
Claim(s) 1-8, 12, and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maki (JP 2005293209 A, hereinafter referred to as Maki) in view of Jorasch (US 20210373676 A1, hereinafter referred to as Jorasch) in further view of Murai (JP 2011227573 A, hereinafter referred to as Murai).
Regarding claim 1, Maki discloses: A biometric authentication apparatus comprising: processing circuitry (Maki: Paragraph [0088] states, "the processing in each processing unit within the personal authentication device 100 and the information terminal 301 is realized when a central processing unit such as a CPU reads the above program into a main memory such as ROM or RAM, and then performs information processing and calculations."): to measure biometric information of an authentication subject by a sensor (Maki: Paragraph [0034] states, "The physical characteristic information measurement unit 101 and the biometric authentication unit 102 perform biometric authentication such as fingerprints, iris scans, and voiceprints. Various devices for performing this biometric authentication have already been developed and are available on the market. For example, regarding fingerprint authentication, as shown in Figure 4, it consists of a fingerprint imaging unit 211 made up of a CCD element or the like, a feature extraction unit 212 that extracts features from the fingerprint image captured by the fingerprint imaging unit 211, and a pattern matching unit 213 that performs pattern matching with fingerprint information registered in advance in a fingerprint database 214."); to generate from the acquired biometric information, authentication information that varies depending on the individual living body, and to determine the propriety of authentication based on whether or not the authentication information satisfies an authentication condition (Maki: Paragraph [0085] states, "by profiling the way you speak when talking on the phone with family or a romantic partner, and using that profile information when calling someone else, you can measure how much you like that person. Or, by profiling the way you speak when talking on the phone with your boss, and using that profile information in conjunction with the voice you use when calling someone else, you can objectively judge how nervous you are at that moment." Paragraph [0086] states, "by utilizing emotional biometrics, the personal authentication device can, in addition to verifying the user's identity as performed by existing biometric authentication, also detect cases where a user is coerced by a perpetrator into performing fraudulent operations. Furthermore, it allows for confirmation of the user's intentions regarding their actions, and as an information terminal, it can convey the user's feelings to the person they are communicating with."), but fails to explicitly disclose: when the estimated mental and physical state is worse than a criterion, to change the authentication condition to a stricter condition.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Jorasch discloses: when the estimated mental and physical state is worse than a criterion, to change the authentication [condition to a stricter condition]; to remeasure the biometric information after the authentication condition is changed [to a stricter condition]; and to generate the authentication information from the remeasured biometric information after determining that the authentication subject can be authenticated, and to redetermine the propriety of authentication [using the updated authentication condition] (Jorasch: Paragraph [1354] states, "Access to the mouse could also be restricted based on the condition of the user. For example, the user device or game controller might determine that, based on the mouse inputs currently being received, the user seems to be reacting slower than normal. This might be due to the player being tired or sick. If the player falls below a threshold amount, such as a reaction time of 90% or less of normal, then the mouse could be instructed to end current game play for a predetermined period of time, such as one hour. After that hour is up, the user would again have access to the mouse, but further checks of reaction time would be made. The mouse could also end game play if the user appeared to not be playing their best game.").
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify the teaching of Maki and include the above limitation with the teaching of Jorasch in order for improved control (Jorasch: Paragraph [0004]). Jorasch fails to explicitly disclose: change the authentication condition to a stricter condition; remeasure…after the authentication condition is changed to a stricter condition; redetermine the propriety of authentication using the updated authentication condition.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Murai further discloses: change the authentication condition to a stricter condition; remeasure…after the authentication condition is changed to a stricter condition; redetermine the propriety of authentication using the updated authentication condition (Murai: Paragraph [0114] states, "The authentication device 20 then requests the user to re-authenticate until authentication is successful." Paragraph [0181] states, "if the correct image is a man's face, using a human face or another man's face as a decoy image can reduce the probability of successful authentication by displaying a decoy image that is easily confused with the correct image, thereby strengthening security during re-authentication and making it more difficult to succeed.").
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify the teaching of Maki as modified by Jorasch and include the above limitation with the teaching of Murai in order to "avoid intrusion by unauthorized access" (Murai: Paragraph [0180]).
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Maki as modified by Jorasch and Murai discloses: The biometric authentication apparatus according to claim 1.
Jorasch further discloses: wherein the processing circuitry generates the mental and physical information at an observation interval, and estimates the mental and physical state from the mental and physical information generated at an observation time (Jorasch: Paragraph [0462] states, "it may be determined when a user's utilization of a peripheral device has the potential to be adverse or harmful to a user (e.g., by keeping the user up late at night, by impacting the user's health). In various embodiments, a determination of the effectiveness of the user's utilization of the peripheral device, or the potential for harm to a user may be determined by monitoring or comparing utilization of a peripheral device over time." Paragraph [0464] states, "a metric of utilization may be based on some statistic of inputs measured over some period of time and/or per unit of time.").
The same motivation to modify with Jorasch, as in claim 1, applies.
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Maki as modified by Jorasch and Murai discloses: The biometric authentication apparatus according to claim 2.
Jorasch further discloses: wherein the processing circuitry estimates the mental and physical state from a change in the mental and physical state generated at the observation interval (Jorasch: Paragraph [0462] states, "it may be determined when a user's utilization of a peripheral device has the potential to be adverse or harmful to a user (e.g., by keeping the user up late at night, by impacting the user's health). In various embodiments, a determination of the effectiveness of the user's utilization of the peripheral device, or the potential for harm to a user may be determined by monitoring or comparing utilization of a peripheral device over time." Paragraph [0464] states, "a metric of utilization may be based on some statistic of inputs measured over some period of time and/or per unit of time.").
The same motivation to modify with Jorasch, as in claim 1, applies.
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Maki as modified by Jorasch and Murai discloses: The biometric authentication apparatus according to claim 1.
Jorasch further discloses: wherein the processing circuitry generates information that represents a physical condition of the authentication subject as the mental and physical information (Jorasch: Paragraph [2095] states, "The headset could initiate a vision test requiring the user to observe images on the screen in different lighting. In addition, the camera could measure the physical characteristics of the eye as additional pieces of information used in the exam. The collected information sent to the central controller AI system for analysis. The results of the test could be provided to the user and medical professional for review. Indications of vision loss could generate preventative action by the user.").
The same motivation to modify with Jorasch, as in claim 1, applies.
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Maki as modified by Jorasch and Murai discloses: The biometric authentication apparatus according to claim 1.
Jorasch further discloses: wherein the processing circuitry generates information that represents an attachment state of the sensor as the mental and physical information (Jorasch: Paragraph [0090] states, "sensor 430 may detect more than binary states. For example, sensor 430 may detect any of four different states, any of 256 different states, or any of a continuous range of states. For example, a sensor may detect the capacitance created by two parallel surfaces. The capacitance may change in a continuous fashion as the surfaces grow nearer or further from one another. The processor 405 may detect the electrical signals generated by sensor 430.").
The same motivation to modify with Jorasch, as in claim 1, applies.
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Maki as modified by Jorasch and Murai discloses: The biometric authentication apparatus according to claim 1.
Jorasch further discloses: wherein the processing circuitry changes the authentication condition depending on whether or not the authentication subject has been estimated to be a living body (Jorasch: Paragraph [1759] states, "A headset can log failed attempts at authorization to keep a record. This information can be stored locally on the headset and/or sent to the central controller. This log can contain the attempted method of authentication, the incorrect information provided, photo or video evidence of the attempt, audio recording of the attempt, time, location, and/or other authentication data collected by the headset, e.g., automatically. The data once collected can be used in a variety of ways: to improve the authentication methods if the person trying to authenticate was the actual person and the attempt should have been successful, to find who the person actual was if their data was in the system, or to alert security or the authorities to the attempted fraud.").
The same motivation to modify with Jorasch, as in claim 1, applies.
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Maki as modified by Jorasch and Murai discloses: The biometric authentication apparatus according to claim 6.
Maki further discloses: wherein when biometric information resulting from a specific movement has been measured, the processing circuitry estimates the authentication subject to be a living body (Maki: Paragraph [0085] states, "by profiling the way you speak when talking on the phone with family or a romantic partner, and using that profile information when calling someone else, you can measure how much you like that person. Or, by profiling the way you speak when talking on the phone with your boss, and using that profile information in conjunction with the voice you use when calling someone else, you can objectively judge how nervous you are at that moment." Paragraph [0086] states, "by utilizing emotional biometrics, the personal authentication device can, in addition to verifying the user's identity as performed by existing biometric authentication, also detect cases where a user is coerced by a perpetrator into performing fraudulent operations. Furthermore, it allows for confirmation of the user's intentions regarding their actions, and as an information terminal, it can convey the user's feelings to the person they are communicating with."), but fails to explicitly disclose: and the processing circuitry changes the authentication condition depending on whether or not the authentication subject has been estimated to be the living body.
However, Jorasch further discloses: and the processing circuitry changes the authentication condition depending on whether or not the authentication subject has been estimated to be the living body (Jorasch: Paragraph [1759] states, "A headset can log failed attempts at authorization to keep a record. This information can be stored locally on the headset and/or sent to the central controller. This log can contain the attempted method of authentication, the incorrect information provided, photo or video evidence of the attempt, audio recording of the attempt, time, location, and/or other authentication data collected by the headset, e.g., automatically. The data once collected can be used in a variety of ways: to improve the authentication methods if the person trying to authenticate was the actual person and the attempt should have been successful, to find who the person actual was if their data was in the system, or to alert security or the authorities to the attempted fraud.").
The same motivation to modify with Jorasch, as in claim 1, applies.
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Maki as modified by Jorasch and Murai discloses: The biometric authentication apparatus according to claim 7.
Maki further discloses: wherein the processing circuitry requires execution of the specific movement to the authentication subject, and when the biometric information resulting from the specific movement is measured [within a reference time] from the requirement of the execution of the specific movement, estimates that the authentication subject is a living body (Maki: Paragraph [0085] states, "by profiling the way you speak when talking on the phone with family or a romantic partner, and using that profile information when calling someone else, you can measure how much you like that person. Or, by profiling the way you speak when talking on the phone with your boss, and using that profile information in conjunction with the voice you use when calling someone else, you can objectively judge how nervous you are at that moment." Paragraph [0086] states, "by utilizing emotional biometrics, the personal authentication device can, in addition to verifying the user's identity as performed by existing biometric authentication, also detect cases where a user is coerced by a perpetrator into performing fraudulent operations. Furthermore, it allows for confirmation of the user's intentions regarding their actions, and as an information terminal, it can convey the user's feelings to the person they are communicating with."), but fails to explicitly disclose: the biometric information resulting from the specific movement is measured within a reference time.
However, Jorasch further discloses: the biometric information resulting from the specific movement is measured within a reference time (Jorasch: Paragraph [0462] states, "it may be determined when a user's utilization of a peripheral device has the potential to be adverse or harmful to a user (e.g., by keeping the user up late at night, by impacting the user's health). In various embodiments, a determination of the effectiveness of the user's utilization of the peripheral device, or the potential for harm to a user may be determined by monitoring or comparing utilization of a peripheral device over time." Paragraph [0464] states, "a metric of utilization may be based on some statistic of inputs measured over some period of time and/or per unit of time.").
The same motivation to modify with Jorasch, as in claim 1, applies.
Claims 12 and 13 recite features similar to those recited in claim 1, therefore they are rejected in a similar manner.
Claim(s) 9-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maki (JP 2005293209 A, hereinafter referred to as Maki) in view of Jorasch (US 20210373676 A1, hereinafter referred to as Jorasch) in further view of Murai (JP 2011227573 A, hereinafter referred to as Murai) in further view of Yokoi (US 20120002846 A1, hereinafter referred to as Yokoi).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Maki as modified by Jorasch and Murai discloses: The biometric authentication apparatus according to claim 6, but fails to explicitly disclose: wherein the processing circuitry changes a measurement condition, and when biometric information depending on the changed measurement condition is measured, estimates that the authentication subject is a living body, and the processing circuitry changes the authentication condition depending on whether or not the authentication subject has been estimated to be the living body.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Yokoi further discloses: wherein the processing circuitry changes a measurement condition, and when biometric information depending on the changed measurement condition is measured, estimates that the authentication subject is a living body (Yokoi: Paragraph [0134] states, "the measurement parameter adjustment processing is performed if neither condition 1 nor condition 2 is satisfied after the 1-to-N collation of the measured data and registered data. By remeasuring the biometric data using the adjusted measurement parameters, the degree of separation among registered data increases and reliability of the collation result increases. As a result, the authentication errors can be controlled. Particularly in the case when determining the collation result is difficult, such as the case when the similarity of the registered data in the first place is between the threshold 1 and the threshold 2 and the degree of separation thereof is a predetermined value or less, generation of authentication errors can be controlled. Furthermore, even if the registered data of which similarity is the threshold 2 or more does not exist, the biometric data is remeasured and recollated, so the generation of authentication failure, despite an authentic person being the subject, can be controlled. Since the measurement of the biometric data is repeated within the time when the posture of the authentication subject does not change, one authentication operation is sufficient for the authentication subject, and convenience improves.").
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify the teaching of Maki as modified by Jorasch and Murai and include the above limitation with the teaching of Yokoi in order to prevent authentication error for security purposes (Yokoi: Paragraph [0005]).
Yokoi fails to explicitly disclose: and the processing circuitry changes the authentication condition depending on whether or not the authentication subject has been estimated to be the living body.
However, Jorasch further discloses: and the processing circuitry changes the authentication condition depending on whether or not the authentication subject has been estimated to be the living body (Jorasch: Paragraph [1759] states, "A headset can log failed attempts at authorization to keep a record. This information can be stored locally on the headset and/or sent to the central controller. This log can contain the attempted method of authentication, the incorrect information provided, photo or video evidence of the attempt, audio recording of the attempt, time, location, and/or other authentication data collected by the headset, e.g., automatically. The data once collected can be used in a variety of ways: to improve the authentication methods if the person trying to authenticate was the actual person and the attempt should have been successful, to find who the person actual was if their data was in the system, or to alert security or the authorities to the attempted fraud.").
The same motivation to modify with Jorasch, as in claim 1, applies.
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Maki as modified by Jorasch and Murai discloses: The biometric authentication apparatus according to claim 7, but fails to explicitly disclose: wherein the processing circuitry changes a measurement condition, and when biometric information depending on the changed measurement condition is measured, estimates that the authentication subject is a living body, and the processing circuitry changes the authentication condition depending on whether or not the authentication subject has been estimated to be the living body.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Yokoi further discloses: wherein the processing circuitry changes a measurement condition, and when biometric information depending on the changed measurement condition is measured, estimates that the authentication subject is a living body (Yokoi: Paragraph [0134] states, "the measurement parameter adjustment processing is performed if neither condition 1 nor condition 2 is satisfied after the 1-to-N collation of the measured data and registered data. By remeasuring the biometric data using the adjusted measurement parameters, the degree of separation among registered data increases and reliability of the collation result increases. As a result, the authentication errors can be controlled. Particularly in the case when determining the collation result is difficult, such as the case when the similarity of the registered data in the first place is between the threshold 1 and the threshold 2 and the degree of separation thereof is a predetermined value or less, generation of authentication errors can be controlled. Furthermore, even if the registered data of which similarity is the threshold 2 or more does not exist, the biometric data is remeasured and recollated, so the generation of authentication failure, despite an authentic person being the subject, can be controlled. Since the measurement of the biometric data is repeated within the time when the posture of the authentication subject does not change, one authentication operation is sufficient for the authentication subject, and convenience improves.").
The same motivation to modify with Yokoi, as in claim 9, applies.
Yokoi fails to explicitly disclose: and the processing circuitry changes the authentication condition depending on whether or not the authentication subject has been estimated to be the living body.
However, Jorasch further discloses: and the processing circuitry changes the authentication condition depending on whether or not the authentication subject has been estimated to be the living body (Jorasch: Paragraph [1759] states, "A headset can log failed attempts at authorization to keep a record. This information can be stored locally on the headset and/or sent to the central controller. This log can contain the attempted method of authentication, the incorrect information provided, photo or video evidence of the attempt, audio recording of the attempt, time, location, and/or other authentication data collected by the headset, e.g., automatically. The data once collected can be used in a variety of ways: to improve the authentication methods if the person trying to authenticate was the actual person and the attempt should have been successful, to find who the person actual was if their data was in the system, or to alert security or the authorities to the attempted fraud.").
The same motivation to modify with Jorasch, as in claim 1, applies.
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Maki as modified by Jorasch and Murai discloses: The biometric authentication apparatus according to claim 8, but fails to explicitly disclose: wherein the processing circuitry changes a measurement condition, and when biometric information depending on the changed measurement condition is measured, estimates that the authentication subject is a living body, and the processing circuitry changes the authentication condition depending on whether or not the authentication subject has been estimated to be the living body.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Yokoi further discloses: wherein the processing circuitry changes a measurement condition, and when biometric information depending on the changed measurement condition is measured, estimates that the authentication subject is a living body (Yokoi: Paragraph [0134] states, "the measurement parameter adjustment processing is performed if neither condition 1 nor condition 2 is satisfied after the 1-to-N collation of the measured data and registered data. By remeasuring the biometric data using the adjusted measurement parameters, the degree of separation among registered data increases and reliability of the collation result increases. As a result, the authentication errors can be controlled. Particularly in the case when determining the collation result is difficult, such as the case when the similarity of the registered data in the first place is between the threshold 1 and the threshold 2 and the degree of separation thereof is a predetermined value or less, generation of authentication errors can be controlled. Furthermore, even if the registered data of which similarity is the threshold 2 or more does not exist, the biometric data is remeasured and recollated, so the generation of authentication failure, despite an authentic person being the subject, can be controlled. Since the measurement of the biometric data is repeated within the time when the posture of the authentication subject does not change, one authentication operation is sufficient for the authentication subject, and convenience improves.").
The same motivation to modify with Yokoi, as in claim 9, applies.
Yokoi fails to explicitly disclose: and the processing circuitry changes the authentication condition depending on whether or not the authentication subject has been estimated to be the living body.
However, Jorasch further discloses: and the processing circuitry changes the authentication condition depending on whether or not the authentication subject has been estimated to be the living body (Jorasch: Paragraph [1759] states, "A headset can log failed attempts at authorization to keep a record. This information can be stored locally on the headset and/or sent to the central controller. This log can contain the attempted method of authentication, the incorrect information provided, photo or video evidence of the attempt, audio recording of the attempt, time, location, and/or other authentication data collected by the headset, e.g., automatically. The data once collected can be used in a variety of ways: to improve the authentication methods if the person trying to authenticate was the actual person and the attempt should have been successful, to find who the person actual was if their data was in the system, or to alert security or the authorities to the attempted fraud.").
The same motivation to modify with Jorasch, as in claim 1, applies.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure includes: Yamamoto (US 20170330400 A1) describes a method of identifying a user by using a bio-signal.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHREYAJ RAM BHANDARI whose telephone number is (571)272-0727. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30-5:00.
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, Ali Shayanfar can be reached at (571) 270-1050. 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.
/SHREYAJ RAM BHANDARI/ Examiner, Art Unit 2434
/NOURA ZOUBAIR/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2434
Prosecution Insights