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 .
Notice to Applicants
This communication is in response to the Application filed on 12/30/2023.
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 1/29/2024, 3/21/2024, 5/3/2024, 6/18/2024, 8/19/2024, 12/27/2024, 2/14/2025, 4/21/2025, 6/13/2025, 8/21/2025, 10/31/2025, and 1/7/2026 have been considered by the examiner.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
Drawings
Color photographs and color drawings (Figures 4-12 and 17-19) are not accepted in utility applications unless a petition filed under 37 CFR 1.84(a)(2) is granted. Any such petition must be accompanied by the appropriate fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(h), one set of color drawings or color photographs, as appropriate, if submitted via the USPTO patent electronic filing system or three sets of color drawings or color photographs, as appropriate, if not submitted via the via USPTO patent electronic filing system, and, unless already present, an amendment to include the following language as the first paragraph of the brief description of the drawings section of the specification:
The patent or application file contains at least one drawing executed in color. Copies of this patent or patent application publication with color drawing(s) will be provided by the Office upon request and payment of the necessary fee.
Color photographs will be accepted if the conditions for accepting color drawings and black and white photographs have been satisfied. See 37 CFR 1.84(b)(2).
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.
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 10 and 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.
Claims 10 and 20 recites the limitation "the first signature" and “the another signature” in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Perhaps claims 10 and 20 ought to depend from claims 9 and 19, respectively (instead of 1 and 11, respectively).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., abstract idea – mental process) without significantly more. Claim 1 is used as an example. Claim 20 recites a system having a memory and a processor. The two-part test to identify claims that are directed to a judicial exception (Step 2A) and to then evaluate if additional elements of the claim provide an inventive concept (Step 2B) are:
(1) Are the claims directed to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter;
(2A) Prong One: Are the claims directed to a judicially recognized exception, i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea;
Prong Two: If the claims are directed to a judicial exception under Prong One, then is the judicial exception integrated into a practical application;
(2B) If the claims are directed to a judicial exception and do not integrate the judicial exception, do the claims provide an inventive concept.
Claim 1. A computer-implemented method comprising: (a) receiving, using one or more processors, one or more images associated with a user request, the one or more images including a first image, wherein the first image includes a facial image purported to be that of a valid document holder; (b) determining, using the one or more processors, whether artifacts associated with injection are present in the first image; (c) determining, using the one or more processors, whether a pose in the first image is suspiciously similar to a pose in a second image; and (d) 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, wherein the prior request was associated with different document holder data. [emphasis added].
With regard to (1), the instant claims recite a method and a system, therefore the answer is "yes".
With regard to (2A), Prong One: Yes. When viewed under the broadest most reasonable interpretation, the instant claims are directed to a Judicial Exception – an abstract idea belonging to the group of mental process – concepts that are practicably performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion). The steps of (b), (c) and (d) (above in emphasized claim 1) are generically recited and nothing in these steps precludes the steps from practically being performed by a human equipped with an appropriate apparatus. It can be interpreted as merely looking at the data and determining a pose (posture, direction, etc.) of a face in an image. There is nothing in the claim that requires more than an operation that a human, armed with the appropriate apparatus, pen and a paper, cannot perform. The determining steps, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. The claim encompasses the user analyzing an image for a pose matching to determine if they are similar. This way, essentially one can present/output information about the section of an image that represents that shape/orientation and whether they are similar or reviewing differences for any artifacts. Thus, these limitations are a mental process.
With regard to (2A), Prong Two: No. The instant claims do not apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception of (a) “receiving”, and therefore does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The use of a system/memory/processor to receive an image (i.e., “data”) at a high level of generality such that said “data” can be used in the operation of the recited judicial exception (the mental step of “receiving”). Supplying “data” does not provide for “integration” of the abstract idea into a practical application, as said data do not change the way in which said system operates. There are no specifics on how the data is received. This can be interpreted as “visualization”. Even if this step is by a “processor” that may be, for example, a camera. A camera/sensor is well known in the field, and receiving data from a camera/sensor is also well known.
This generic processor limitation is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. In conclusion, the claim as a whole does not provide for “integration” of the abstract idea into a practical application.
The claim is directed to the abstract idea.
With regard to (2B), as discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional element in the claim amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The same analysis applies here, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. The pending claims do not show what is more than a routine in the art presented in the claims, i.e., the additional elements are nothing more than routine and well-known steps. There is no improvement to technology here. There is only steps of (b), (c) and (d). with additional elements of (a), and it has not been shown that the mental process allows the “technology” to do something that it previously was not able to do.
Therefore, the claims 1 and 11 are ineligible.
With regard to dependent claims 2-10 and 12-20 similar analysis is applied and therefore does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application – does not provide significant more than the judicial exception. These claims are similarly rejected for the same reasons discussed in view of steps recited in claim 1 and not repeated herewith.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by 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 images associated with a user request, the one or more 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, whether a pose in the first image is suspiciously similar to a pose in a second image (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 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.”).
With regard to claim 2 Ganong discloses wherein determining whether artifacts associated with injection are present in the one or more 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 pose in the first image is suspiciously similar to a pose in a second score 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 performing a first pose estimation on a face represented in the first image (paragraph [0118], Figure 7); performing a second pose estimation on a face represented in the second image (paragraph [0118], Figure 7); comparing the first and second pose estimations (paragraph [0125], Figure 7); and determining whether the first and second pose estimations 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
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 Monday-Thursday 8AM-6PM, Friday 8AM-12PM.
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, Henok Shiferaw can be reached at 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 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.
SHEFALI D. GORADIA
Primary Patent Examiner
Art Unit 2676
/SHEFALI D GORADIA/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2676