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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 2/17/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s response, filed 1/21/2026, to the last office action has been entered as the RCE was filed on 2/17/2026. Please see below for updated interpretations and rejections.
Response to Arguments
As noted in the Advisory Action mailed on 1/28/2026, the arguments in relation to the prior art are not persuasive and similar to the arguments made in the response to the Non-Final Rejection filed on 9/26/2025. Please refer to the arguments previously presented in the Final Rejection mailed 11/21/2025.
Applicant’s additional arguments have been considered but are not persuasive given the amendments to the independent claims raise 112(a) and 112(b) issues as fully disclosed below. As such, these arguments are directed solely to the amended portions that raise these 112 issues and will not be considered, and the prior art rejections are maintained.
Based on these facts, this action is made Non-Final.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding independent claims 1 and 11, both disclose “describing the determined document class as a class” but there is no support for an additional class for a document class associated with a document. The closest support is originally filed specification, Par. [0056], wherein a document classifier may identify a document, but that is only related to a document class, and not as a class of the determined document class.
Regarding independent claims 1 and 11, both disclose “features present in, and common across, valid instances of the determined document class” but there is no support that the features are common across as claimed. The closest support is originally filed specification, Par. [0109], wherein a feature is either present or absent, but nothing related to having features present in, and common across, valid instances.
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 1-20 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.
Regarding independent claim 1, it discloses the following:
Lines 9-10 of the amendment discloses “valid instances of the determined document class”, but it is unclear when “valid instances of the determined document class” was already presented in lines 8-9.
Lines 14-15 of the amendment discloses “document content describing a first visible characteristic” but it is unclear when “document content describing a first visible characteristic” was already presented in line 11.
Lines 16-17 of the amendment discloses “object detection” but it is unclear when “object detection” was already presented in line 13.
Line 18 discloses “the set of checks” but line 6 discloses “a set of one or more checks”, so it is unclear whether they are intended to be the same or not.
Line 19-20 discloses “the document under test image for validity” but this is unclear when previously it was disclosed as “the document under test for validity” in line 6-7.
Line 22 discloses “the document under test” but it is unclear when previously it was disclosed as “the document under test for validity” in line 6-7.
Independent claim 11 discloses similar language to claim 1 and raises similar 112(b) issues as disclosed above.
Appropriate correction is required.
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) 1-4, 6-7, 9-10, 11-14, 16-17, 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Khan (US 20150341370 A1) in view of Balakrishnan (US 20210124919 A1) and Choi (US 20230013380 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Khan teaches a method comprising:
determining, using one or more documents, a document class associated with a document under test represented in an electronic image of the document under test (Khan, Fig. 6, determine document type/class of a document under test represented in an electronic image (scans) of the document under test, [0073-0081]);
obtaining, using one or more processors, a document assembly object describing the document class as a class, wherein the document assembly object includes a set of one or more checks to evaluate the document under test for validity as a member of the determined document class and describes features of valid instances, present in, and common across, the determined document class (Khan, Figs. 6-8, final object/response includes concatenation of set of checks/attributes of the document under test, and describes valid/authentic instances present in the document [corresponding to a document assembly object], being subsequent to/associated with the determined document class/type, [0073-0081, 0113-0122]), and the document assembly object indicates that valid instances of the determined document class include a document holder image and document content describing a first visible characteristic of a document holder (Khan, Fig. 2, 7-8, document assembly object indicates valid attributes/instances, including document holder image (Fig. 2, 210; Fig. 7, photographic identity, 641-645; Fig. 8, photographic identity 662, 667) and document content describing a first visible characteristic of the document holder (Fig. 2, age 272, sex 276; Fig. 8, attributes 662, 666), [0058-0059, 0113-0122]);
automatically obtaining, using one or more processors, the document holder image from the electronic image of the document under test using object detection (Khan, Fig. 2, 210; Fig. 7, photographic identity, 641-645; Fig. 8, photographic identity 662, 667, obtain face/document holder image from the image of the document under test using object detection, [0058, 0150]);
automatically obtaining, using the one or more processors, document content describing a first visible characteristic of the document holder from the electronic image of the document under test using one or more of optical character recognition and object detection (Khan, Fig. 2, age 272, sex 276; Fig. 8, attributes 662, 666, obtain document content describing a first visible characteristic of the document holder from the image of the document under test using optical character recognition, [0058-0059]);
applying, using the one or more processors, the set of checks included in the document assembly object to evaluate the document under test image for validity, the set of checks including:
a formality compliance check determining whether the document holder image in the document under test complies with one or more rules relating to at least one formality associated with validity (Khan, Figs. 6-8, apply set of checks, including checks for document attributes and components, [0074-0088, 0113-0122]); and
modifying, using the one or more processors, a likelihood that the document under test is accepted or rejected based on one or more of the formality compliance check and document under test internal consistency check (Khan, Fig. 7, 644; Fig. 8, 667-670, modify matching score/likelihood that the document matches and is therefore accepted/verified based on the first formality compliance check, [0101-0106, 0119-0122]).
While Khan discloses checking the dimensions via template comparison for formality compliance, Balakrishnan also teaches a dimensional formality compliance check determining whether a set of dimensions associated with the document holder image in the document under test is consistent with validity (Balakrishnan, features checked for validity include conformation to “face size restrictions,” corresponding to subject-based feature as the face size of the subject is being checked, and conformation to aspect ratio of text within the document holder image, [0159-0164, 0249, 0264-0265]),
a document image holder background formality compliance check determining whether a set of background features associated with the document holder image in the document under test is consistent with validity (Balakrishnan, features of the document, including the document holder image, checked for validity include “background patterns” and “background on the document (because certain documents have strict background/face size restrictions which a forger might not be aware of),” [0240, 0246]); and
a subject-based formality compliance check determining whether a set of subject- based formality features associated with a subject of the document holder image in the document under test is consistent with validity (Balakrishnan, features of the document, including the document holder image, checked for validity include checking for “editing artefacts…expected age/gender range” of the face, which are subject-based, [0263-0264]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Khan using the teachings of Balakrishnan to include Balakrishnan’s checking the background and subject-based features for validity to Khan’s checking of the document holder image for validity. Doing so would improve the formality compliance check by providing checking of features within the document holder image, which would be used to more efficiently identify fraudulent or noncompliant documents.
However, the combination of Khan and Balakrishnan fails to teach where Choi teaches a document under test internal consistency check determining whether the first visible characteristic as described in the document content obtained from the document under test is consistent with the first visible characteristic as visible in the document holder image in the document under test (Choi, perform check determining whether first visible characteristic described in the document content obtained from the document under test is consistent with the first visible characteristic in the document holder image (determined sex/age based on image analysis) in the document under test, [0018, 0065, 0124-0128]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified Khan, as modified by Balakrishnan, using the teachings of Choi to include Choi’s checking if the document content is consistent with analysis of the document holder image to Khan’s, as modified by Balakrishnan, checking of the document content and the document holder image. Doing so would improve document verification by providing a way to verify if the document holder in the image matches the document content (e.g. is of the same sex/age/hair color as specified), which would be used to easily identify fraud.
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Khan, Balakrishnan, and Choi teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the set of one or more checks includes a first rule explicitly defined by an issuer valid instances of the document in a document specification (Khan, Fig. 7, 642; Fig. 8, 662, the checks include checking rules/attributes of valid photographic elements/document holder images which are explicitly defined by the issuer of the document in the database, which is maintained by the issuer [corresponding to specification], and the document at test must match these rules/attributes, [0017-0020, 0103-0104, 0114-0119]).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Khan, Balakrishnan, and Choi teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the set of one or more checks includes a first rule inferred from an analysis of a plurality of valid document instances (Khan, the set of checks includes checking rules/elements of valid photographic elements/document holder images which are inferred from an analysis of a plurality of valid document instances in a training set using a classifier, [0103-0104, 0114-0119, 0180]).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Khan, Balakrishnan, and Choi teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the document content includes field content (Khan, Fig. 2, document content includes field content age 272 and sex 276, [0058, 0065-0067]).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Khan, Balakrishnan, and Choi teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the set of dimensions associated with the dimensional formality compliance check include one or more of: document holder image height, document holder image width, document holder image aspect ratio, a valid range for document holder head height, a valid range for document holder head width, and a margin (Balakrishnan, document rules for evaluating authenticity include checking conformation to “face size restrictions” corresponding to document holder head height/width with a strict margin, and conformation to aspect ratio of text within the document holder image, [0159-0164, 0249, 0264-0265], wherein Khan also disclose checking the set of dimensions).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Khan, Balakrishnan, and Choi teaches the method of claim 1, wherein one or more of the document image holder background formality compliance check and the subject-based formality compliance check determine whether at least one formality requirement is satisfied, wherein the formality requirement is associated with a formality feature that is either present in, or absent from, the document holder image in valid instances of the document (Balakrishnan, check if “background patterns” and “background on the document (because certain documents have strict background/face size restrictions which a forger might not be aware of),” are present and proper in valid instances; and check if “editing artefacts” are present in or absent from the image, as they are intended to be absent from valid instances, [0240, 0246, 0263-0264]), and wherein a machine learning model is applied to the document holder image in the electronic image of the document under test to determine whether the formality feature is present in, or absent from, the document holder image of the document under test (Choi, Fig. 3a, machine learning/neural network model performs checks on electronic image of the document under test to determine present features, [0061, 0065, 0138], wherein the combination of Khan and Balakrishnan discloses the checks being formality checks).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Khan, Balakrishnan, and Choi teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the first visible characteristic includes one or more of a sex, hair color, eye color, height, weight, a head size ratio, and a head outline of the document holder (Khan, Fig. 2, first visible characteristic includes sex 276, [0058-0059, 0067]).
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Khan, Balakrishnan, and Choi teaches the method of claim 9, wherein one or more machine learning models are used to determine the first visible characteristic in the document holder image, which is compared to field content obtained using optical character recognition (Choi, Fig. 3a, machine learning/neural network model determines first visible characteristic in the document holder image (determined sex/age based on image analysis) and compares it to field content obtained using optical character result, [0018, 0065, 0124-0128], wherein Khan discloses the determining the first visible characteristic and field content using OCR, [0058-0059]).
Regarding claims 11-14, 16-17, 19-20, the rationale provided in the rejection of claims 1-4, 6-7, 9-10 is incorporated herein. In addition, the system of claims 11-14, 16-17, 19-20 (Khan, Fig. 10, processor 1010, memory 1012, [0141]) corresponds to the method of claims 1-4, 6-7, 9-10, and performs the steps disclosed herein.
Claim(s) 5, 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Khan in view of Balakrishnan and Choi as applied to claims 1, 11 above, further in view of Kiat (MY 192715 A).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Khan, Balakrishnan, and Choi teaches the method of claim 1.
However, the combination of Khan, Balakrishnan, and Choi fails to teach where Kiat teaches wherein the document content includes a ghost image (Kiat, document content for document holder image verification includes ghost image, pgs. 4, 9-10).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified Khan, as modified by Balakrishnan and Choi, using the teachings of Kiat to include Kiat’s ghost image document content for document verification to Khan’s, as modified by Balakrishnan and Choi, document content for document verification. Doing so would improve document verification by providing ghost images to check, which would be used to verify if the ghost image and document holder image match.
Regarding claim 15, the rationale provided in the rejection of claim 5 is incorporated herein. In addition, the system of claim 15 (Khan, Fig. 10, processor 1010, memory 1012, [0141]) corresponds to the method of claim 5, and performs the steps disclosed herein.
Claim(s) 8, 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Khan in view of Balakrishnan and Choi as applied to claims 1, 11 above, further in view of newly found prior art Teman (US 20160005050 A1).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Khan, Balakrishnan, and Choi teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the set of background features includes one or more of: background color, a presence of an object in the background, and background shadowing (Balakrishnan, features evaluated include “background patterns” [corresponding to background color and background shadowing] and “background on the document (because certain documents have strict background/face size restrictions which a forger might not be aware of),” [0240, 0246]).
However, the combination of Khan, Balakrishnan, and Choi fails to teach where Teman teaches wherein the set of subject-based formality features are associated with one or more of: headwear, glasses, hair coverage of one or more facial features, facial shadowing, facial expression, eyes being open, and a direction of gaze (Teman, characterize/check for subject-based formality features including “presence of glasses…the percentage of hair and/or other items covering the face” for future authentication, [0085-0086, 0090-0091, 0132-0135]),
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified Khan, as modified by Balakrishnan and Choi, using the teachings of Teman to include Teman’s checking of subject features like glasses and hair coverage of facial features for authentication to Khan’s, as modified by Balakrishnan and Choi, checking of subject features for authentication. Doing so would improve authentication by providing direct checking of features like glasses and hair coverage, which would be used to verify if the document holder subject is possibly fraudulent.
Regarding claim 18, the rationale provided in the rejection of claim 8 is incorporated herein. In addition, the system of claim 18 (Khan, Fig. 10, processor 1010, memory 1012, [0141]) corresponds to the method of claim 8, and performs the steps disclosed herein.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Vincent Rudolph whose telephone number is (571)272-8243. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30 AM - 3:30 PM.
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.
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.
/VINCENT RUDOLPH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2671
Prosecution Insights