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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment was filed on 4/30/2026.
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks on page 11-12, filed 4/30/2026, with respect to 35 USC 101, specification (title), and 35 USC 112 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejections under 35 USC 101, specification (title), and 35 USC 112 have been withdrawn.
Applicants’ arguments filed under Remarks on pages 12-14 on 4/30/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicants state on page 13 that:
PNG
media_image1.png
299
674
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Ganong discloses determining…whether the first pose is suspiciously similar to the second pose”. In the face recognition section, Ganong at paragraph [0119] discloses that “the triangle between the eye and nose landmarks can be used to calculate a pitch and yaw estimate for the face. This estimate can be used to verify that a person moved to the proper pose”. Further, Ganong illustrates in Fig. 7 an image undergoing multiple face transformations. Related to Fig. 7, at paragraph [0125], Ganong discloses that image goes processes that “estimate where each of the plurality of facial landmarks is likely to appear when the face is presented to an image sensor in a different pose. These estimated positions may then be applied in order to transform (e.g., warp) the original image, thereby producing one or more transformed images 702-720. Features of each transformed image 702-720 may then be analyzed in order to add additional facial signature values to the face signature of the face represented in the original image”. Please note, throughout the reference, and as an example, at paragraph [0127], Ganong discloses that “two human faces are compared to one another”. It is from these sections, it is interpretated that Ganong teaches the limitations recited in claim 1.
Applicants state on pages 13-14 that:
PNG
media_image2.png
275
677
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
258
661
media_image3.png
Greyscale
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Ganong discloses determining whether a background portion in the first image is suspiciously similar to a background portion in another image, wherein the another image was previously received in association with a prior request, and wherein the prior request was associated with different document holder data, as recited in claim 1. Ganong at paragraphs [0103 and 0132] discloses that “In the event an image submitted for face detection is detected as being a reproduction of an image, some embodiments may designate the image as not containing a face, but rather, containing a reproduction of a face; such images may be flagged as possible spoofing attempts”, and “ a notification message may be delivered by authentication system 110 to the registered user upon each successful or unsuccessful authentication attempt.”. Further, in Fig. 11 where a digital asset is illustrated, an image of a user is shown along with document or other data, signature of the user, etc. These other ‘keys’ are considered to be the ‘background portion” when the request is to authenticate the face part as user’s key. Considering these interpretations, Ganong meets the limitation of claim 1.
The Examiner notes the amendment made to pending claims. The amendment of “determining…first pose…degerming…second pose”, in combination with claim as a whole is rejected under 35 USC 103.
Drawings
The drawings were received on 4/30/2026. These drawings are accepted.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2018/0373859 to Ganong, et al. (hereafter, “Ganong”).
With regard to claim 1 Ganong discloses a computer-implemented method (Figures 1-5) comprising: receiving, using one or more processors, one or more digital images (paragraph [0074], a digital image) associated with a user request, the one or more digital images including a first image, wherein the first image includes a facial image purported to be that of a valid document holder (paragraph [0075], Figures 1 and 3, “method for authenticating the sender of an electronic document, authenticating the sender's photo identification credential, and authenticating the sender's document or transaction using face biometrics with standard digital signature technology”); determining, using the one or more processors, whether artifacts associated with injection are present in the first image (paragraph [0103], Figure 1, “authentication system 110 implements or triggers texture based analysis to determine whether the image containing a depiction of a face is an original image…or a reproduction of an original image…”); determining, using the one or more processors (processor 110a, paragraphs [0071, 0073]) and a pose estimation, a first pose associated with a face represented in the first image, wherein the pose estimation is a computer-vision technique (paragraph [0119]; Facial landmarks can also be used to verify that the person has met the pose request. As an example, the triangle between the eye and nose landmarks can be used to calculate a pitch and yaw estimate for the face. This estimate can be used to verify that a person moved to the proper pose…the poses can be asked in random order; if the user moves in the wrong direction based on the pitch and yaw estimates that authentication session can be discarded); determining, using the one or more processors and the post estimation, a second pose associated with a face represented in a second image (paragraph [0119]; Facial landmarks can also be used to verify that the person has met the pose request. As an example, the triangle between the eye and nose landmarks can be used to calculate a pitch and yaw estimate for the face. This estimate can be used to verify that a person moved to the proper pose…the poses can be asked in random order; if the user moves in the wrong direction based on the pitch and yaw estimates that authentication session can be discarded); determining, using the one or more processors, whether the first pose is suspiciously similar to the second pose (paragraph [0089], “similarity threshold is linked directly to the method for determining the likeness between two face signatures. In mathematical terms, the two faces being compared are represented by a vector of real numbers (e.g. face signatures) and a proxy for likeness is the distance between those two vectors (e.g. similarity metric)”); and determining, using the one or more processors, whether a background portion in the first image is suspiciously similar to a background portion in another image, wherein the another image was previously received in association with a prior request, wherein the prior request was associated with different document holder data (paragraphs [0103 and 0132], “ In the event an image submitted for face detection is detected as being a reproduction of an image, some embodiments may designate the image as not containing a face, but rather, containing a reproduction of a face; such images may be flagged as possible spoofing attempts”, and “ a notification message may be delivered by authentication system 110 to the registered user upon each successful or unsuccessful authentication attempt.”).
Ganong does not specifically teach that first pose and second pose are determined. However, Ganong discloses multiple face signature and pose estimation for each as seen at paragraphs [0118-0119], mentioned above, and at paragraph [0111] by stating, “the systems and methods described herein may successfully recognize the face depicted in the challenge image as being the same face represented by the second face signature. That is, the systems and methods described herein may authenticate an individual depicted in one or more challenge images if the score is above the similarity threshold. The similarity threshold may be updated using machine learning techniques”.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ganong’s reference to have an explicit recitation of a first pose and a second pose. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to have first and second pose estimation as they are illustrated in Fig. 7 and knowing that multiple facial signatures (i.e., face detection identifying one or more face regions, paragraph [0074]).
Further, one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as described above by known method with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results. Therefore, it would have been obvious to obtain the invention as specified in claim 1.
With regard to claim 2 Ganong discloses wherein determining whether artifacts associated with injection are present in the one or more digital images comprises: training a first model using images including images using a first type of injection, the first type of injection generating first artifacts, and determining that first artifacts are present (paragraphs [0105 and 0114]).
With regard to claim 3 Ganong discloses determining, by applying facial detection, a portion of the first image representing a face, wherein the first model focuses on the portion of the first image representing the face (paragraphs [0108]).
With regard to claim 4 Ganong discloses wherein first model is injection type specific, the first type of injection is one selected from: a face swap, a face morph, and a synthetic face, and wherein the first artifacts are indicative of the first type of injection (paragraph [0105]).
With regard to claim 5 Ganong discloses wherein determining that the first pose is suspiciously similar to the second pose is based on one or more of a similarity score, a threshold, and a binary classifier (paragraph [0096]).
With regard to claim 6 Ganong discloses wherein the second image is associated with the user request (paragraph [0032]).
With regard to claim 7 Ganong discloses wherein the second image was previously received in association with another user request and associated with different document holder information (paragraph [0132]).
With regard to claim 8 Ganong discloses comparing the first pose and the second pose (paragraph [0125], Figure 7); and determining whether the first pose and the second pose satisfy a threshold indicative of suspicious similarity (paragraph [0127]).
With regard to claim 9 Ganong discloses determining a first signature associated with a background portion in the first image (paragraph [0094]); determining another signature associated with a background portion in the another image (paragraph [0094]); and determining, based on the first signature and the another signature, whether the first image and the another image are similar (paragraph [0096] and Figures 9A-9B).
With regard to claim 10 Ganong discloses wherein the first signature and the another signature are both based on one or more of an average hash, a perceptual hash, a difference hash, and a wavelet hash (paragraph [0144] and Figure 5).
With regard to claim 11, claim 11 is rejected same as claim 1 and the arguments similar to that presented above for claim 1 are equally applicable to claim 11. Ganong discloses a system comprising a processor and a memory as illustrated in Figures 1-4, and all of the other limitations similar to claim 1 are not repeated herein, but incorporated by reference.
With regard to claim 12, claim 12 is rejected same as claim 2 and the arguments similar to that presented above for claim 2 are equally applicable to claim 12. Ganong discloses a system comprising a processor and a memory as illustrated in Figures 1-4, and all of the other limitations similar to claim 2 are not repeated herein, but incorporated by reference.
With regard to claim 13, claim 13 is rejected same as claim 3 and the arguments similar to that presented above for claim 3 are equally applicable to claim 13. Ganong discloses a system comprising a processor and a memory as illustrated in Figures 1-4, and all of the other limitations similar to claim 3 are not repeated herein, but incorporated by reference.
With regard to claim 14, claim 14 is rejected same as claim 4 and the arguments similar to that presented above for claim 4 are equally applicable to claim 14. Ganong discloses a system comprising a processor and a memory as illustrated in Figures 1-4, and all of the other limitations similar to claim 4 are not repeated herein, but incorporated by reference.
With regard to claim 15, claim 15 is rejected same as claim 5 and the arguments similar to that presented above for claim 5 are equally applicable to claim 15. Ganong discloses a system comprising a processor and a memory as illustrated in Figures 1-4, and all of the other limitations similar to claim 5 are not repeated herein, but incorporated by reference.
With regard to claim 16, claim 16 is rejected same as claim 6 and the arguments similar to that presented above for claim 6 are equally applicable to claim 16. Ganong discloses a system comprising a processor and a memory as illustrated in Figures 1-4, and all of the other limitations similar to claim 6 are not repeated herein, but incorporated by reference.
With regard to claim 17, claim 17 is rejected same as claim 7 and the arguments similar to that presented above for claim 7 are equally applicable to claim 17. Ganong discloses a system comprising a processor and a memory as illustrated in Figures 1-4, and all of the other limitations similar to claim 7 are not repeated herein, but incorporated by reference.
With regard to claim 18, claim 18 is rejected same as claim 8 and the arguments similar to that presented above for claim 8 are equally applicable to claim 18. Ganong discloses a system comprising a processor and a memory as illustrated in Figures 1-4, and all of the other limitations similar to claim 8 are not repeated herein, but incorporated by reference.
With regard to claim 19, claim 19 is rejected same as claim 9 and the arguments similar to that presented above for claim 9 are equally applicable to claim 19. Ganong discloses a system comprising a processor and a memory as illustrated in Figures 1-4, and all of the other limitations similar to claim 9 are not repeated herein, but incorporated by reference.
With regard to claim 20, claim 20 is rejected same as claim 10 and the arguments similar to that presented above for claim 10 are equally applicable to claim 20. Ganong discloses a system comprising a processor and a memory as illustrated in Figures 1-4, and all of the other limitations similar to claim 10 are not repeated herein, but incorporated by reference.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 SHEFALI D. GORADIA whose telephone number is (571)272-8958. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday 8AM-6PM, Friday 8AM-12PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Henok Shiferaw can be reached on 571-272-4637. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
SHEFALI D. GORADIA
Primary Patent Examiner
Art Unit 2676
/SHEFALI D GORADIA/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2676
Prosecution Insights