DETAILED ACTION
The following FINAL Office action is in response to Amendment filed on November 14, 2025 for application 18539115
Acknowledgements
Claims 9-15 have been canceled.
Claims 1-8 and 16-27 are pending.
Claims 1-8 and 16-27 have been examined.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after December 13, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
In response to Applicant’s arguments under 35 USC 101, Applicant argues that the amended claims integrate the exception into a practical application, specifically because the limitations relate to a specific usage (face identifications using face identifiers and ensemble similarity scores from vector determinations) that improves technology (e.g., to provide increased data security and enhanced authentication through improved face identification using ensemble scores for increased confidence in user identification). Applicant further argues that the claims provide specific improvements in technology providing an improved facial feature identification process using a machine learning (ML) approach with ensemble similarity scores from different vectors of different feature lengths and providing an improve facial feature authentication system that improves online authentication processes and service provider systems that enable cryptocurrency transactions.
In response to the Applicant’s arguments under 35 USC 101, Examiner respectfully disagrees as the amended claim limitations reciting the concepts of face identifications using face identifiers and ensemble similarity scores from vector determinations authorizing cryptocurrency transactions or performing other high-risk activities are still directed to verifying a transaction based on analysis of the characteristics of the user. After careful analysis of the amended limitations, the claim limitations are still being grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas classified under “fundamental economic principles or practices”, specifically “mitigating risk” as part of a transaction because the claims are reciting a series of steps for collecting facial identification data for secure authentication and performing intelligent decision-making during a financial transaction by determining whether the authentication for the transaction is approved based on the liveness of the facial data and conducting parallel processing for making a face identification via comparisons, predictions, decisions based on mapping face images and features. Also, the judicial exception is still not considered integrated into a practical application because the additional elements of the claims such as a service provider system comprising a non-transitory memory and one or more hardware processors, a device of a user, a first machine learning (ML) model and a second ML model and cryptocurrency merely involves using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. The use of the recited “service provider system comprising a non-transitory memory and one or more hardware processors, a device of a user, a first machine learning (ML) model and a second ML model and cryptocurrency” to implement the abstract idea and/or generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment] does not render the claim patent eligible because it requires no more than a computer performing functions that correspond to acts required to carry out the concept of verifying a transaction based on analysis of the characteristics of the user. Also, the underlined portion of the newly added limitation “extracting, from the at least one first facial image, a set of features usable by a first machine learning (ML) model and a second ML model trained for facial feature comparisons in different user images, wherein the first ML model and the second ML model are configured for distinct vector generation of vectors having different feature lengths” recites the intended use of the first ML model and the second ML model and according to the MPEP (2103 I C, 2114 IV) such language does not have patentable weight. Overall, Examiner determined that the models in the claims are disclosed and discussed at a high level and appear to be used as tools, without any specific details of improvement to the models themselves or the system being claimed.
Also, the dependent claims further describe details how a face identifier for the account using a user image on a proof of identity (POI) document of the user is generated, determining the first facial feature data for the face identifier, conducting an analysis to compute the ensemble similarity score based on the first facial feature data to the face identifier and tethering the face identifier to an identity of the user across the financial transaction. The dependent claims recite additional elements such as “an orchestration layer, a private key, identity-as-a-service platform, the first ML model and the second ML model”, however, they do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or that provide significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, the dependent claims are also not patent eligible.
Applicant’s arguments are moot under new grounds of rejection.
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 1-8 and 16-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
In the instant case, claims 1-8 are directed to a system, claims 16-20 are directed to a non-transitory machine-readable medium and claims 21-27 are directed to a method. Therefore, these claims fall within the four statutory categories of invention.
The claims recite verifying a transaction based on analysis of the characteristics of the user which is an abstract idea. Specifically, the claim recites “receiving a request for a transaction from a user; determining that the request requires an authentication of the user to process the transaction; receiving at least one first facial image of the user based on the authentication required to process the transaction; detecting that the at least one first facial image indicates a liveness of the user when captured, wherein the liveness corresponds to a confidence score that the user was present in the at least one first facial image when captured; extracting a set of features for facial data comparisons in different user images…; generating first vectors based on the set of features; computing an ensemble similarity score based on the first and second vectors; comparing the at least one first facial image to a face identifier for an account of the user using the first and second vectors, first facial feature data corresponding to the face identifier; and determining whether the authentication for the transaction is approved based on the comparing” which is grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas in prong one of step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test, classified under “fundamental economic principles or practices”, specifically “mitigating risk” as part of a transaction (See MPEP 2106, specifically 2106.04(a)) because – for example, in this case, the claims involve a series of steps for collecting facial identification data for secure authentication and intelligent decision-making during a financial transaction and determining whether the authentication for the transaction is approved based on the liveness of the facial data and conducting parallel processing for making a face identification via comparisons, predictions, decisions based on mapping face images and features. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea (See MPEP 2106, specifically 2106.04(a)).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because, when analyzed under prong two of step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test (See MPEP 2106.04(d)), the additional elements of the claims such as a service provider system comprising a non-transitory memory and one or more hardware processors, a device of a user, a first machine learning (ML) model and a second ML model and cryptocurrency merely involves using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea and/or generally links the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment. The use of “service provider system comprising a non-transitory memory and one or more hardware processors, a device of a user, a first machine learning (ML) model and a second ML model and cryptocurrency” to implement the abstract idea and/or generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment] does not render the claim patent eligible because it requires no more than a computer performing functions that correspond to acts required to carry out the abstract idea. Specifically, the “service provider system comprising a non-transitory memory and one or more hardware processors, a device of a user, a first machine learning (ML) model and a second ML model and cryptocurrency” perform the steps or functions of “receiving a request for a transaction from a user; determining that the request requires an authentication of the user to process the transaction; receiving at least one first facial image of the user based on the authentication required to process the transaction; detecting that the at least one first facial image indicates a liveness of the user when captured, wherein the liveness corresponds to a confidence score that the user was present in the at least one first facial image when captured; extracting a set of features for facial data comparisons in different user images…; generating first vectors based on the set of features; computing an ensemble similarity score based on the first and second vectors; comparing the at least one first facial image to a face identifier for an account of the user using the first and second vectors, first facial feature data corresponding to the face identifier; and determining whether the authentication for the transaction is approved based on the comparing”. The additional claim elements are not indicative of integration into a practical application, because the claims do not involve improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field (MPEP 2106.05(a)), the claims do not apply the abstract idea with, or by use of, a particular machine (MPEP 2106.05(b)), the claims do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (MPEP 2106.05(c)), and the claims do not apply or use the abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP 2106.05(e) and Vanda Memo). Therefore, the claims do not, for example, purport to improve the functioning of a computer. Nor do they effect an improvement in any other technology or technical field. Accordingly, the additional elements do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when analyzed under step 2B of the Alice/Mayo test (See MPEP 2106, specifically 2106.05), the additional elements of “service provider system comprising a non-transitory memory and one or more hardware processors, a device of a user, a first machine learning (ML) model and a second ML model and cryptocurrency” to automate and/or implement the abstract idea of verifying a transaction based on analysis of the characteristics of the user. As discussed above, taking the claim elements separately “service provider system comprising a non-transitory memory and one or more hardware processors, a device of a user, a first machine learning (ML) model and a second ML model and cryptocurrency” perform the steps of Claim 1. These functions correspond to the actions required to perform the abstract idea. Viewed as a whole, the combination of elements recited in the claims merely recite the concept of verifying a transaction based on analysis of the characteristics of the user. Therefore, the use of these additional elements does no more than employ the computer as a tool to automate and/or implement the abstract idea. The use of “service provider system comprising a non-transitory memory and one or more hardware processors, a device of a user, a first machine learning (ML) model and a second ML model and cryptocurrency” to merely automate and/or implement the abstract idea cannot provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself (MPEP 2106.05(I)(A)(f) & (h)). Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claims further describe details how a face identifier for the account using a user image on a proof of identity (POI) document of the user is generated, determining the first facial feature data for the face identifier, conducting an analysis to compute the ensemble similarity score based on the first facial feature data to the face identifier and tethering the face identifier to an identity of the user across the financial transaction. The dependent claims recite additional elements such as “an orchestration layer, a private key, identity-as-a-service platform, the first ML model and the second ML model”, however, they do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or that provide significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, the dependent claims are also not patent eligible.
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 of this title, 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.
Claims 1-8 and 16-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tussy (US 2023/0031087 A1) in view of Yu et al. (US 2021/0150534 A1) in view of SHARMA et al. (US 2021/0150330 A1) and in further view of Ramanathan et al. (US 11,907,346 B1).
Regarding Claims 1,16 and 21, Tussy discloses a service provider system comprising: a non-transitory memory; and one or more hardware processors coupled to the non-transitory memory and configured to read instructions from the non-transitory memory to cause the service provider system to perform operations comprising (an authentication system comprising: ¶0061 “server 120”, ¶0092 “authentication server 120”):
receiving a request for a cryptocurrency transaction from a device of a user (“mobile device of user”); (¶0092, ¶0093, ¶0106, ¶0233, ¶0240)
determining that the request requires an authentication of the user to process the cryptocurrency transaction; (¶0092, ¶0093, ¶0106, ¶0108, ¶0233, ¶0240)
receiving at least one first facial image of the user from the device based on the authentication required to process the cryptocurrency transaction; (¶0099, ¶0104, ¶0105, ¶0235, ¶0252, ¶0252, ¶0260, ¶0318, ¶0319)
detecting that the at least one first facial image indicates a liveness of the user when captured, wherein the liveness corresponds to a confidence score that the user was present in the at least one first facial image when captured; (¶0104, ¶0257, ¶0314, ¶0315, ¶0324, ¶0325, ¶0343, ¶0350)
comparing, [using the first and second ML models], the at least one first facial image to a face identifier for an account of the user [using the first and second vectors] and, first facial feature data corresponding to the face identifier; and (¶0062, ¶0066, ¶0099 “the authentication server 120 performs facial recognition on the images to determine biometric information ("enrollment biometrics") for the user and may then associate the enrollment biometrics with the device information and the unique identifier (or account information) and stores the biometric information in the database 124”, ¶0100, ¶0102, ¶0262, ¶0318, ¶0319, ¶0328, ¶0350)
determining whether the authentication for the [cryptocurrency transaction is approved] based on the comparing (¶0063, ¶0115, ¶0236, ¶0263)
Tussy does not specifically disclose: comparing, [using the first and second ML models], the at least one first facial image to a face identifier for an account of the user [using the first and second vectors], generating first vectors using first ML model and second vectors using the second ML model based on the set of features and generating first vectors using first ML model and second vectors using the second ML model based on the set of features.
Yu however discloses:
comparing, [using the first and second ML models], the at least one first facial image to a face identifier for an account of the user [using the first and second vectors] (¶0013, ¶0015, ¶0020)
generating first vectors using first ML model and second vectors using the second ML model based on the set of features (¶0021, ¶0022)
computing an ensemble similarity score using first and second ML models and based on the first and second vectors (¶0020, ¶0022-¶0023)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the method of Tussy to include “comparing, [using the first and second ML models], the at least one first facial image to a face identifier for an account of the user [using the first and second vectors], generating first vectors using first ML model and second vectors using the second ML model based on the set of features and generating first vectors using first ML model and second vectors using the second ML model based on the set of features”, as disclosed in Yu, in order to provide a verification system that can provide user authentication using parallel modeling for face identification (see Yu abstract).
The combination of Tussy and Yu does not disclose: extracting, from the at least one first facial image, a set of features usable by a first machine learning (ML) model and a second ML model trained for facial feature comparisons in different user images, [wherein the first ML model and the second ML model are configured for distinct vector generation of vectors having different feature lengths].
SHARMA however discloses: extracting, from the at least one first facial image, a set of features usable by a first machine learning (ML) model and a second ML model trained for facial feature comparisons in different user images (¶0101, ¶0116-¶0117).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the method of Tussy to include “extracting, from the at least one first facial image, a set of features usable by a first machine learning (ML) model and a second ML model trained for facial feature comparisons in different user images”, as disclosed in SHARMA, in order to provide a system for modeling based on a multi-stage training by machine learning (see SHARMA ¶0001).
The combination of Tussy, Yu and SHARMA does not specifically disclose: [cryptocurrency transaction is approved].
Ramanathan however discloses: [cryptocurrency transaction is approved] (Col. 6 lines 47-48).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the method of Tussy to include “[cryptocurrency transaction is approved]”, as disclosed in Ramanathan, in order to provide a system that authenticate a user based on a facial feature of the user that may include access to a digital currency (see Ramanathan abstract).
Claims 1,16 and 21 recite “wherein the first ML model and the second ML model are configured for distinct vector generation of vectors having different feature lengths”. However, the limitation merely describes the intended use of the first ML model and the second ML model and according to the MPEP (2103 I C, 2114 IV) such language does not have patentable weight.
Regarding Claims 2 and 22, Tussy discloses: wherein, prior to the receiving the request, the operations further comprise: generating the face identifier for the account using a user image on a proof of identity (POI) document of the user and at least one second facial image captured of the user when the POI document is submitted; and tethering the face identifier to the account and an identity of the user across computing services for the service provider system, wherein the face identifier is required to be verified at least for cryptocurrency transactions performed using the computing services in association with the account or the identity (¶0094, ¶0258, ¶0310, ¶0327, ¶0328, ¶0346)
Regarding Claims 3 and 23, Tussy discloses: wherein the computing the ensemble similarity score comprises: computing a first similarity score of the first facial feature data to the face identifier using the first ML model and based on the first vectors and third vectors associated with the face identifier and computing a second similarity score of the first facial feature data to the face identifier using the second ML model and based on the second vectors and the third vectors (¶0062, ¶0066, ¶0099, ¶0350).
Regarding Claims 4 and 24, the combination of Tussy, Yu, SHARMA and Ramanathan disclose the invention as above.
SHARMA further disclose wherein the first, second and third vectors correspond to facial features in the different user images (¶0117)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the method of Tussy to include “wherein the first, second and third vectors correspond to facial features in the different user images”, as disclosed in SHARMA, in order to provide a system for modeling based on a multi-stage training by machine learning (see SHARMA ¶0001).
Regarding Claims 5 and 25, the combination of Tussy, Yu, SHARMA and Ramanathan disclose the invention as above.
Ramanathan further discloses wherein the operations are performed using an orchestration layer that enables service integrations with a cryptocurrency transaction service for the cryptocurrency transaction and other computing services of the service provider system, and wherein the orchestration layer tethers the face identifier to an identity of the user across the cryptocurrency transaction and the other computing services of the service provider system (Col. 6 lines 47-48, Col. 6 line 53-Col. 7 line 4).
Regarding Claims 6 and 26, the combination of Tussy, Yu and Ramanathan disclose the invention as above.
Ramanathan further discloses wherein, in response to the authentication being approved based on the comparing, the operations further comprise: processing the cryptocurrency transaction based on the request (Col. 6 lines 47-48, Col. 6 line 53-Col. 7 line 4).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the method of Tussy to include wherein, in response to the authentication being approved based on the comparing, the operations further comprise: processing the cryptocurrency transaction based on the request”, as disclosed in Ramanathan, in order to provide a system that authenticate a user based on a facial feature of the user that may include access to a digital currency (see Ramanathan abstract).
Regarding Claims 7 and 27, Tussy discloses wherein, prior to the detecting, the operations further comprise: requesting that the user perform a face movement that indicates the liveness of the user of when capturing the at least one first facial image; and computing the confidence score based on a response to receiving the face movement (¶0104, ¶0257, ¶0314, ¶0315, ¶0324, ¶0325, ¶0343, ¶0350)
Regarding Claim 8, Tussy discloses wherein the cryptocurrency transaction requires an access to a private key associated with cryptocurrency available to the account, and wherein the operations further comprise: providing the access to the private key based on determining that the authentication is approved based on the comparing (¶0271, ¶0274-¶0275).
Regarding Claim 17, Tussy discloses wherein the operations further comprise: accessing a tethered identifier for the account that includes the facial feature data usable for the authentication of the user, wherein the comparing is performed responsive to the accessing (¶0062, ¶0066, ¶0099).
Regarding Claim 18, the combination of Tussy, Yu, SHARMA and Ramanathan disclose the invention as above.
Ramanathan discloses wherein the request of for the authentication is received by an orchestration layer for an identity-as-a-service platform of a service provider processing the cryptocurrency transaction (Col. 6 lines 47-48, Col. 6 line 53-Col. 7 line 4).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the method of Tussy to include “wherein the request of for the authentication is received by an orchestration layer for an identity-as-a-service platform of a service provider processing the cryptocurrency transaction”, as disclosed in Ramanathan, in order to provide a system that authenticate a user based on a facial feature of the user that may include access to a digital currency (see Ramanathan abstract).
Regarding Claim 19, Tussy discloses wherein the orchestration layer is connected to a plurality of clients for a plurality of computing services of the service provider (¶0129).
Regarding Claim 20, Tussy discloses wherein the operations further comprise: processing the cryptocurrency transaction based on the authentication and one or more cryptocurrencies owned by the user (¶0063, ¶0115, ¶0236, ¶0263).
Conclusion
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 ZEHRA RAZA whose telephone number is (571)272-8128. The examiner can normally be reached 10AM-6:30PM.
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.
/ZEHRA RAZA/Examiner, Art Unit 3697
/JOHN W HAYES/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3697
Prosecution Insights