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 .
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: ***Each “module” in claims 13-19.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
Claim(s) 1-6, 11-18, 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kolleri (US 2018/0068173) in view of WILLIAMS (US 2021/0084451).
As to claim 1, Kolleri discloses a method implemented by a processor, comprising:
obtaining a living face image (para. 0074) and generating a face retrieval demand signal (para. 0075, 0076)
calling the distributed face library based on the face retrieval demand signal, the distributed face library including a plurality of sub-libraries (para. 0050, 0091, e.g., graph database which comprises nodes corresponds to distributed face library including a plurality of sub-libraries);
matching the living face image through the distributed face library based on a preset retrieval strategy (para. 0039, e.g., a potential match image can be presented to a user of the mobile device for verification that the potential match image depicts the same person as the captured image. If the images are indicated as depicting the same person, profile information associated with the potential match image in a graph database can be retrieved and presented to the user via the mobile device; para. 0076-0080);
in response to a determination that the living face image is not matched, returning a first risk result (para. 0065, 0081, 0101, 0102, 0106, 0109-0111, 0143, 0176, e.g., malicious images either marked either as invalid, or coming from a device with a low trust score can be quarantined); or
in response to a determination that the living face image is matched, returning a second result (para. 0079, 0080, 0082, e.g., new profile information can be added to, merged with, and/or replace all or part of the retrieved profile information. The updated profile information can then be transmitted by the mobile device to the identity verification server).
Kolleri is silent regarding controlling a risk and returning a second risk result.
WILLIAMS teaches monitoring for and preempting risks (para. 0054, 0179, 0184).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate WILLIAMS’s teaching into Kolleri since doing so would merely combine prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, and further enhance risk levels of whether the face image is malicious or authentic.
As to claim 2, the combination of Kolleri and WILLIAMS discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the plurality of sub-libraries are determined by at least one of: dividing the distributed face library into the plurality of sub-libraries corresponding to a plurality of first attributes, respectively, by using a common attribute of a plurality of types of documents as a division medium; determining a data differentiation within each data medium, selecting a data medium that exceeds a preset differentiation threshold, and dividing the distributed face library into the plurality of sub-libraries corresponding to a plurality of second attributes, respectively, according to a data feature of the data medium; or mixing data of a plurality of data mediums, performing modulo slicing based on a preset hash function, and dividing the distributed face library into the plurality of sub-libraries corresponding to a plurality of third attributes, respectively, according to a data slicing result (Kolleri, para. 0050, 0091, 0135, e.g., graph database which comprises nodes corresponds to distributed face library including a plurality of sub-libraries)
As to claim 3, the combination of Kolleri and WILLIAMS discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the obtaining a living face image and generating a face retrieval demand signal includes: in response to a determination that a face feature is recognized in a detection region, capturing a current face image of a target subject (Kolleri, Fig., 6, para. 0115, 0116, 0127); and obtaining a preset action image of the target subject and performing real person verification combined with the current face image of the target subject (Kolleri, Fig. 6, para. 0114, 1118).
As to claim 4, the combination of Kolleri and WILLIAMS discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the calling the distributed face library based on the face retrieval demand signal includes: generating a data request field based on the face retrieval demand signal (Kolleri, para. 0091, 0149); determining a name, a location, and network configuration of the distributed face library based on the data request field (Kolleri, Fig. 9, para. 0131, 0135-0139); and calling a query statement based on the data request field and the name, the location, and the network configuration of the distributed face library, determining connection information of the distributed face library, and sending the data request field to a preset node of the distributed face library to make a data connection be established between the preset node and at least one sub-library of the distributed face library (Kolleri, Fig. 9, 10, para. . 0131, 0135-0139, 0153-0155).
As to claim 5, the combination of Kolleri and WILLIAMS discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the matching the living face image through the distributed face library based on a preset retrieval strategy includes: obtaining a standardized image based on a detected face by performing an alignment operation on the living face image (Kolleri, 0055, 0056, 0059, 0127, 0128); extracting a face feature based on the standardized image to calculate a feature vector of the living face image(Kolleri, para. 0051, 0056); and searching for a face image whose coincidence degree with the feature vector exceeds a first coincidence threshold in the distributed face library (Kolleri, para. 0057, 0058, 0060, 0090-0092).
As to claim 6, the combination of Kolleri and WILLIAMS discloses the method of claim 5, further comprising: in response to a determination that a matching misjudgment of the living face image occurs, adjusting the first coincidence threshold or retraining the distributed face library (Kolleri, para. 0057, 0058, 0060, 0090-0092).
As to claim 11, the combination of Kolleri and WILLIAMS discloses the method of claim 1, wherein in response to a determination that the living face image is not matched, the returning a first risk result includes: storing the living face image to a sub-library corresponding to the living face image of the distributed face library based on a preset library division strategy (Kolleri, para. 0081, 0109-0111).
As to claim 12, the combination of Kolleri and WILLIAMS discloses the method of claim 11, further comprising: recording a calling duration of the distributed face library (Kolleri, para. 0095, 0108); and in response to a determination that the calling duration exceeds a preset duration threshold, generating a warning notification to redistribute the sub-library of the distributed face library (Kolleri, para. 0095, 0108).
As to claims 13-18, 20, these claims recite features similar to those discussed above. Therefore, they are rejected for reasons similar to those discussed above.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7-10, 19 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The prior art references disclose the claim limitations discussed above, but fails to disclose the combined features required by each of dependent claims 7, 10, 19.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Benkreira discloses a system that receives an image including a live facial image of the user and an identity document including a photograph of the user. Moreover, the system calculates a facial match score by comparing facial features in the live facial image to facial features in the photograph.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PHUOC TRAN whose telephone number is (571)272-7399. The examiner can normally be reached 9am-5pm.
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, Vu Le can be reached at 571-272-7332. 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.
/PHUOC TRAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2668