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 .
Status of Claims
The amendment filed on 09/29/2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 2 and 15 are cancelled per applicant’s filing of 09/29/2025.
Claims 1, 16-18, 20 are amended.
Claims 1, 16-18, 20 are pending. 1, 16-18, 20 have been examined.
Response to Amendment/Arguments
Rejection under 35 U.S.C. §112(b)
Applicant’s remarks and amendments to the claims have overcome the previous rejections under 35 U.S.C. §112(b) in the previous office action; therefore, the rejections are withdrawn.
Rejections under 35 U.S.C. §101
Applicant’s remarks and amendments to the claims have overcome the previous rejections under 35 U.S.C. §101 in the previous office action; therefore, the rejections are withdrawn.
Claim Rejections – 35 USC §103
Applicant’s arguments received on 09/29/2025 with respect to the prior art rejections have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection initiated by applicant’s amendment to the claims.
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 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 1, 17, 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lieberman et al. (US 2017/0186011 A1 (“Lieberman”)) in view of LANGLEY et al. (US 2013/0044920A1 (“LANGLEY”)) in further view of Wilson et al. (US 2012/0246079A1 (“Wilson”)).
Per Claims 1 and 20, Lieberman discloses a method for authenticating identity of a user of an electronic device and for verifying a authenticity of a transaction that the user submits via the electronic device (Lieberman: Fig. 1; ¶¶36-37), the method comprising:
(a) while the user interacts with one or more input units of the electronic device to enter transaction data into a computerized system (Lieberman: Fig. 1, Fig. 6; ¶¶44-46, 61, 99, 104, 118-120, 122), capturing video of said user via a front-side camera of said electronic device (Lieberman: Fig. 1, item 160; ¶¶104, 122);
(b) while the user interacts with said one or more input units of the electronic device to enter said transaction data into said computerized system (Lieberman: Fig. 1, Fig. 6; ¶¶44-46, 61, 99, 104, 118-120, 122), generating at said electronic device an interfering device-based [] event (Lieberman: Fig. 6, Fig. 7; ¶¶99, 101-102, 119)…
(c) performing at a remote server (Lieberman: Fig. 1, item 130; ¶40) a particular analysis of video content, that was captured while the user interacted with one or more input units of said electronic device to enter transaction data (Lieberman: Fig. 4, items 425-430, Fig. 6, items 640/645; ¶¶40, 77, 105, 108, 124, 127)…
(d) if said particular analysis indicates that the captured video content does not correctly reflect said interfering device-based [] event (Lieberman: ¶¶77-78)…then: [further processing, by said remote server…]; (Lieberman: ¶¶77-78)
wherein the method is performed by at least a hardware processor of said electronic device and by a hardware processor of said remote server. (Lieberman: Fig. 1; ¶¶44-46)
Additionally, for claim 20, Lieberman discloses a system (Lieberman: Fig. 1; ¶44) comprising:
a server comprising one or more hardware processors that are configured to execute code; (Lieberman: Fig. 1, item 130; ¶162)
an electronic device of a user; (Lieberman: Fig. 1, item 160; ¶45)
wherein the system is configured to perform a process…( Lieberman: Fig. 1; ¶¶44, 162)
Lieberman discloses generating at said electronic device an interfering device-based event (Fig. 6, Fig. 7; ¶¶99, 101-102, 119) and said particular analysis checks whether or not the captured video content correctly reflects said interfering device-based [] event (Lieberman: Fig. 6, item 645; ¶¶77). However, Lieberman does not explicitly teach illumination event and the illumination event and the electronic device illuminates at a particular illumination pattern having a particular illumination timing and having a particular illumination sequence, and the particular illumination pattern having the particular illumination timing and the particular illumination sequence being part of the particular analysis.
LANGLEY discloses:
(b) while the user interacts with said one or more input units of the electronic device to enter said transaction data into said computerized system (LANGLEY: ¶27), generating at said electronic device an interfering device-based illumination event (LANGLEY: Fig. 1, item 12, Fig. 5, item 52; ¶¶15-16, 42, 51), in which the electronic device illuminates at a particular illumination pattern having a particular illumination timing and having a particular illumination sequence (LANGLEY: Fig. 3/4; ¶¶28-29, 35-37)
(c) performing at a remote server a particular analysis of video content, that was captured while the user interacted with one or more input units of said electronic device to enter transaction data (LANGLEY: Fig. 1, item 14/16, Fig. 5, item 52/58; ¶¶19, 23-25, 27, 51-52), wherein said particular analysis checks whether or not the captured video content correctly reflects said interfering device-based illumination event and said particular illumination pattern having said particular illumination timing and said particular illumination sequence; (LANGLEY: Fig. 1, item 16, Fig. 3/4; ¶¶26-29, 31,35-36, 44, 51-52)
(d) if said particular analysis indicates that the captured video content does not correctly reflect said interfering device-based illumination event and said particular illumination pattern having said particular illumination timing and said particular illumination sequence (LANGLEY: Fig. 3/4, Fig. 5, item 54; ¶¶44, 54), then: [performing further processing] by said remote server (LANGLEY: Fig. 5, item 54; ¶¶54, 64-65);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Lieberman to incorporate the teachings of support of producing illumination pattern for device-based illumination event, as disclosed in LANGLEY, to reduce the risks that transactions will be conducted fraudulently, and thus facilitate enhancing security of systems and resources involved in conduction such transactions (LANGLEY: ¶65).
Lieberman in view of LANGLEY does not explicitly disclose determining that transaction data that was submitted from said electronic device is fraudulent or was compromised.
Wilson discloses determining that transaction data that was submitted from said electronic device is fraudulent or was compromised (Wilson: ¶¶119, 160, 178).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Lieberman in view of LANGLEY to incorporate the teachings of authentication of user and transaction, as disclosed in Wilson, for increased security and fraud reduction (Wilson: ¶186).
Per Claim 17, Lieberman in view of LANGLEY and Wilson discloses all the limitations of claim 1.
Lieberman discloses:
at the electronic device, streaming the captured video content from said electronic device over a communication link (Lieberman: Fig. 1, item 120) to said remote server (Liberman: Fig. 1, item 130), which performs said particular analysis of step (c) that checks whether or not the captured video content correctly reflects said interfering device-based [] event. (¶¶40, 106, 108)
LANGLEY discloses interfering device-based illumination event. (LANGLEY: Fig. 1, item 16; ¶¶26-29, 31,35-36, 44, 51-52)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Lieberman in view of LANGLEY and Wilson to incorporate the teachings of support of device-based illumination event, as disclosed in LANGLEY, to reduce the risks that transactions will be conducted fraudulently, and thus facilitate enhancing security of systems and resources involved in conduction such transactions (LANGLEY: ¶65).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lieberman in view of LANGLEY and Wilson as applied to claim 1 further in view of Blessing, W. (US 2009/0138405A1 (“Blessing”)).
Per Claim 16, Lieberman in view of LANGLEY and Wilson discloses all the limitations of claim 1.
Lieberman discloses:
at the electronic device, generating a recorded video segment, that includes in it continuous video that was captured by the front-side camera of the electronic device while the user was entering transaction data; (Lieberman: ¶67)
Lieberman in view of LANGLEY and Wilson does not explicitly disclose:
at the electronic device, encoding transaction data into at least one frame of said recorded video segment.
Blessing discloses:
at the electronic device, encoding transaction data into at least one frame of said recorded video segment. (Blessing: Fig. 6; ¶¶37, 75)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Lieberman in view of LANGLEY and Wilson to incorporate the teachings of secure online transaction, as disclosed in Blessing, to maintain high degrees of security (Blessing: ¶4).
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lieberman in view of LANGLEY and Wilson as applied to claim 1 further in view of Nakamura et al. (US 2020/0280750A1 (“Nakamura”)).
Per Claim 18, Lieberman in view of LANGLEY and Wilson discloses all the limitations of claim 1.
Lieberman discloses:
at the electronic device, streaming…the captured video content, from said electronic device over a communication link to a remote server, which performs said particular analysis of step (c) that checks whether or not the captured video content correctly reflects said interfering device-based event; (¶¶106, 108)
Lieberman in view of LANGLEY and Wilson does not explicitly disclose:
streaming only every Nth video frame of the captured video content…wherein N is a pre-defined integer.
Nakamura discloses:
streaming only every Nth video frame of the captured video content… wherein N is a pre-defined integer. (Nakamura: Fig. 5; ¶¶43-48; claim 6)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Lieberman in view of LANGLEY and Wilson to incorporate the teachings of frame-based video transmission, as disclosed in Nakamura, for a time delivering method with high accuracy (Nakamura: ¶22).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Tussy (US 2019/0303551A1) discloses authenticating a user in an authentication system using a computing device configured to capture authentication biometric identity information.
Parupati (US 2020/0311449A1) discloses using an illumination sequence pattern for biometric authentication.
Kim (US 10,372,894B2) discloses iris authentication method and device using display information.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHENYUH KUO whose telephone number is (571)272-5616. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8-4 PM EST.
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, JOHN W HAYES can be reached at (571)272-6708. 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.
/CHENYUH KUO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3697