DETAILED ACTION
This is in reference to communication received 06 January 2026. Claims 1 – 19 are pending for examination. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 1 - 19 in the reply filed on 21 July 2025 is acknowledged.
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 – 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Independent claim 15, representative of claim 1, in part is directed toward a statutory category of invention, the claim appears to be directed toward a judicial exception namely an abstract idea. Claim 15 recites invention directed to using selfies (photograph) of a user for authentication purposes. When a selfie is received from a user, it is compared with the archived selfies of the user, and if it is determined that the selfie provided by the user is valid, user will be provided access to the resources, and, if it is determined that the received selfie as a fraudulent selfie, said user will be denied to access the requested resources, and all the archived selfies of the to the user are moved to another archive log where all the fraudulent selfies are maintained.
These limitations describe marketing/sales/advertising activities. Verifying a user before they are provided access to provided services, and flagging users determined as fraudulent as a potential threat are part for access control for subscribed services. Checking identifying information of a user, and allowing them access to resources, or creating an alert message when the user is determined to be an intruder would be access-control team (or person) on an entity providing access control at the point of entry of an establishment.
Next, the aforementioned claim recite additional functional elements that are associated with the judicial exception, including: defining that a user will be capturing their selfie using their user device with a camera using a proprietary software like a mobile-app; comparing of the received images with historically collected images stored in a database; making a determination whether the received selfie is fraudulent, and performing the activity following workflow related to handle fraudulent selfies. Additionally, the aforementioned claim recites to modify the image quality of the image capturing device when determination available network bandwidth is slow, which, pursuant to MPEP 2106.04, is aptly categorized as a method of organizing human activity (i.e. advertising).
Represented claims 1, which do recite statutory categories (machine, product of manufacture, for example), the same analysis as above applies to these claims since the method steps are the same. However, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. These claims add the generic computer components (additional elements) of a system comprising one or more hardware processors and a memory.
The devices (D1, D2 to Dn) each including a built-in camera, system servers (SR1, SR2 to SRn), adapted with a downloadable custom server application software are recited at a high-level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. 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. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of the processor, memory, and non-transitory machine-readable medium amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claims are not patent eligible.
When taken as an ordered combination, nothing is added that is not already present when the elements are taken individually. When viewed as a whole, the marketing activities amount to instructions applied using generic computer components.
As for dependent claims 2 – 14 and 16 – 19 dependent on the aforementioned independent claims, and include all the limitations contained therein. These claims do not recite any additional technical elements, and simply disclose additional limitations that further limit the abstract idea with details regarding components of the server(s); defining that the parameters can be set from a remote location; following the defined workflow to process access by new users; defining that the user has to take their selfie and provide to the server to be able to gain access to the server; defining that the selfies will be stored in database as compressed files; defining that external third-party is authorized to share selfies; defining what points in the selfies will be considered to make determinate whether the selfie is a fraudulent selfie. Thus, the dependent claims merely provide additional non-structural (and predominantly non-functional) details that fail to meaningfully limit the claims or the abstract idea(s).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 1 – 10 and 12 – 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tussy US publication 2021/0011986 in view of Common-Sense published YouTube video “How to Use Google Reverse Image to Fact Check Images” hereinafter referred to as Common-Sense, Huber US Publication 2021/0398135 and March Networks YouTube video “Save on Storage & Bandwidth with March Networks’ ME4 and SE2 Series IP Cameras” hereinafter referred to as March-Networks.
Regarding claim 1 and represented claim 15, Tussy teaches an anti-fraud, anti-money laundering (AML), anti-terrorist financing (ATF) system and method (Tussy, system and method to verify identity using a previously collected biometric image/data), comprising of:
devices (D1, D2 to Dn) each including a built-in camera including camera hardware, and each configured for internet access, each adapted with a downloadable custom device application software to access the camera hardware and system servers through the internett [Tussy, 0172], and
the system servers (SR1, SR2 to SRn), adapted with a downloadable custom server application software to allow authorised external access to the system servers through the internet and respond to those external authorised access requests, by the devices which are authenticated devices each with the custom device application software (Tussy, each trusted image is converted into a biometric template by a facial recognition algorithm for comparison. Upon comparison, if the templates are similar enough based on the thresholds set by, for example, an application publisher or entity requesting authentication, the smart device captured image (device identity) and the previously captured image (root identity) can be considered a match in step 1711. Thus, the person is who they assert to be, and identity is verified. Access may then be granted, or the business transaction completed, travel allowed, or any other activity authorized, or the signup/enrollment process may then be completed based on the matching images or temp lated in step 1713.) [Tussy, 0259],
Tussy does not explicitly recite comparing of photo using database by any database accessible. However, Common-Sense teaches Google-Image database can be used by user to perform reverse image search, when a user initiates a search for an image, list of the similar images are presented to the user as a response [Common-Sense, see at least page 1, 5, and 9].
Therefore, at the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Tussy by adopting teachings of Common-Sense to identify where do the user provided image shows, where did it originate and determine whether the image is original or it has been altered.
Tussy in view of Common-Sense teaches system and method further comprising:
the system servers are adapted to access a remote digital comparison-modules (DCM 1, DCM2 to DCMn) to compare two photos e.g. selfies (e.g. an incoming photo e.g. selfie with any photo e.g. selfie of any database accessible by the system servers) (Common-Sense, Google-Image database can be used by user to perform reverse image search, when a user initiates a search for an image, list of the similar images are presented to the user as a response) [Common-Sense, see at least page 1, 5, and 9], and wherein
Tussy in view of Common-Sense does not explicitly teach maintaining a separate database comprising photos identified as fraud. However, Common-Sense teaches the Google reverse search can be used to identify where do the user provided image shows, where did it originate and determine whether the image is original or it has been altered (e.g., one of the websites may be questionable website). Huber teaches storing, by the data processing system, the user identification information in a database [Huber, 0009]. Huber further teaches the facial recognition module can compare the input image of the face of the entity that is a party to a transaction to a database of facial images and determine based on the comparison a likelihood 152-2 that the transaction sought by the entity is legitimate [Huber, 0025].
Therefore, at the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Tussy in view of Common-Sense by adopting teachings of Huber to trigger alerts that cause one or more transactions to be denied based on one or more attributes of a party to the transaction, one or more attributes of the transaction, or a combination of both.
Tussy in view of Common-Sense and Huber teaches system and method further comprising:
the system servers further comprise a fraud photos e.g. selfies (photo of users' faces) database (FSDB), including all the photo(s) e.g. selfie(s) identified as fraud, AML or ATF (F- AML-ATF-Selfies), and an accounts info database (AIDB), with the user accounts identification information associated with each historical photo(s) e.g. selfie(s) that was input to the system and was identified as a F-AML-ATF-Selfie (Huber, facial recognition module can compare the input image of the face of the entity that is a party to a transaction to a database of facial images and determine based on the comparison a likelihood 152-2 that the transaction sought by the entity is legitimate [Huber, 0025], and
the system servers are adapted to access a remote historical photos e.g. selfies database (HSDB) of photos e.g. selfies sent by any of the devices to the HSDB (Common-Sense, a URL of the image can be used to get a list of images of hits from different sites where image shows up) [Common-Sense, page 11], and
the system servers are adapted to access a remote digital comparison-modules (DCM 1, DCM2 to DCMn) to compare two photos e.g. selfies (e.g. an incoming photo e.g. selfie with any photo e.g. selfie of any database accessible by the system servers) (Huber, facial recognition module can compare the input image of the face of the entity that is a party to a transaction to a database of facial images and determine based on the comparison a likelihood 152-2 that the transaction sought by the entity is legitimate [Huber, 0025], and wherein
each new photo selfie that is sent by any of the devices (D1, D2 to Dn) to any of the system servers (SR1, SR2 to SRn), meaning an incoming photo selfie (INS) to the system, is compared separately in parallel by a first remote digital comparison module (DCM1) of the remote digital comparison modules (Tussy, the images and/or the biometric template(s) from the user's device may be uploaded to the server where they can be stored and/or compared with the root identity biometric images and/or template(s).) [Tussy, 0269] and by a second remote digital comparison module (DCM2) of the remote digital comparison module one by one with all photos selfies in the FSDB, and one by one with all the photos selfies in the HSDB (Common-Sense, Google-Image database can be used by user to perform reverse image search, when a user initiates a search for an image, list of the similar images are presented to the user as a response) [Common-Sense, see at least page 1, 5, and 9], and wherein
in the event of any INS as an input to the a first remote digital comparison module (DCM1) matches with any photo selfie of the HSDB as the other input to the first remote digital comparison module (DCM1), then the corresponding accounts is/are flagged as an F- AML-ATF-Account in the accounts info database (AIDB), and a trigger is provided to authorised entities outside of the system as an anti-fraud (AF) indication such that when the AF indication is no then no match was found (Huber, based on determining, by the data processing system and based on the transaction profile that the transaction is not to be denied, selectively storing, by the data processing system, the user identification information in a database for review by one or more human users (250), receiving, by the data processing system, input data from the one or more human users, the input data indicating that the image of the identification document has a characteristic of a transaction that is to be denied (260), and training, by the data processing system, the transaction verification system to identify subsequent based on determining, by the data processing system and based on the transaction profile that the transaction is not to be denied, selectively storing, by the data processing system, the user identification information in a database for review by one or more human users (250), receiving, by the data processing system, input data from the one or more human users, the input data indicating that the image of the identification document has a characteristic of a transaction that is to be denied (260), and training, by the data processing system, the transaction verification system to identify subsequent) [Huber, 0062], and when the AF indication is yes then a positive match was found, and if no match was found then no action is taken and the system starts a new check when the next incoming photo selfie is received (Tussy, For example, each trusted image is converted into a biometric template by a facial recognition algorithm for comparison. Upon comparison, if the templates are similar enough based on the thresholds set by, for example, an application publisher or entity requesting authentication, the smart device captured image (device identity) and the previously captured image (root identity) can be considered a match in step 1711. Thus, the person is who they assert to be, and identity is verified.) [Tussy, 0259], and if a match was found then a trigger is provided by the system to authorised entities inside or outside of the system as a blacklisted accounts list (BLAL) indication with all identified blacklisted accounts associated with that incoming photo e.g. selfie (Tussy, an absence of the relative change in the dimensions of the facial features alerts the system to a fraudulent attempt at authentication.) [Tussy, 0199], wherein
in the event of any INS as an input to the second remote digital comparison module (DCM2) matches with any photo selfie of the FSDB as the other input to the second remote digital comparison module (DCM2), then the corresponding accounts is/are flagged as a F-AML- ATF-Accounts in the accounts info database (AIDB), and the incoming photo selfie that was flagged as a F-AML-ATF-Selfie is stored in the FSDB and the system starts a new check when the next incoming photo selfie is received, and if no match was found then a trigger is provided by the system to authorised entities inside or outside of the system as a no-anti-fraud (NO-AF) indication for that incoming photo selfie (Huber, based on determining, by the data processing system and based on the transaction profile that the transaction is not to be denied, selectively storing, by the data processing system, the user identification information in a database for review by one or more human users (250), receiving, by the data processing system, input data from the one or more human users, the input data indicating that the image of the identification document has a characteristic of a transaction that is to be denied (260), and training, by the data processing system, the transaction verification system to identify subsequent based on determining, by the data processing system and based on the transaction profile that the transaction is not to be denied, selectively storing, by the data processing system, the user identification information in a database for review by one or more human users (250), receiving, by the data processing system, input data from the one or more human users, the input data indicating that the image of the identification document has a characteristic of a transaction that is to be denied (260), and training, by the data processing system, the transaction verification system to identify subsequent) [Huber, 0062];
Tussy in view of Common-Sense and Huber does not teach adapt the device based on bandwidth. However, March-Networks teaches changing of compression algorithm changes the data rates coming from cameras [March-Networks, page 3, 4].
Therefore, at the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Tussy in view of Common-Sense and Huber by adopting teachings of March-Networks to maintain the quality of an image while reducing the size of data file which will result to consumption of lower storage space and faster transmission of the data file which is smaller is size.
Tussy in view of Common-Sense, Huber and March-Networks teaches system, wherein, the custom device application software of any device of the devices D1, D2 to Dn is configured to automatically check the available internet bandwidth and to adapt the device camera hardware to use the highest possible photo selfie quality, such that the upload of the photo selfie to the system server over the internet would be done in under a particular time, wherein that selfie is then transferred by the custom device application software corresponding to device D1, D2 to Dn to the corresponding system server SR1, SR2 to SRn as the INS.
Regarding claim 2, as responded to above, Tussy in view of Common-Sense, Huber and March-Networks teaches system and method, wherein the historical photos selfies database (HSDB) is part of the system server (Tussy, Using the user ID code, retrieve a trusted image from a database (e.g., images are stored in a database) and using the trusted image, generate a trusted image facemap and comparing captured image facemap to the trusted image facemap.) [Tussy, 0047].
Regarding claim 3, as responded to above, Tussy in view of Common-Sense, Huber and March-Networks teaches system and method, wherein the digital comparison-modules (DCM1, DCM2 to DCMn) are part of the system server (Tussy, Fig. 21 and associated disclosure].
Regarding claim 4, as responded to above, Tussy in view of Common-Sense, Huber and March-Networks teaches system and method, wherein each photo selfie of the HSDB that matched with any flagged F-AML-ATF-Selfie is subsequently used as an individual INS to the system server (Tussy, For example, each trusted image is converted into a biometric template by a facial recognition algorithm for comparison. Upon comparison, if the templates are similar enough based on the thresholds set by, for example, an application publisher or entity requesting authentication, the smart device captured image (device identity) and the previously captured image (root identity) can be considered a match in step 1711. Thus, the person is who they assert to be, and identity is verified.) [Tussy, 0259].
Regarding claim 5, as responded to above, Tussy in view of Common-Sense, Huber and March-Networks teaches system and method, wherein the parameters of each digital comparison-modules (DCM1, DCM2 to DCMn) are remotely settable in the system server as an X percentage and a Y percentage, wherein
a match as an F-AML-ATF-Selfie is confirmed by any individual DCM1, DCM2 to DCMn when both input photos selfies are considered identical, meaning when the digital result from both DCM inputs is equal to or more than the X percentage, and wherein (Tussy, For example, each trusted image is converted into a biometric template by a facial recognition algorithm for comparison. Upon comparison, if the templates are similar enough based on the thresholds set by, for example, an application publisher or entity requesting authentication, the smart device captured image (device identity) and the previously captured image (root identity) can be considered a match in step 1711. Thus, the person is who they assert to be, and identity is verified.) [Tussy, 0259], and wherein
a visual check match is flagged as a potential unconfirmed F-AML-ATF-Selfie to be considered by a person with authorized access to the input pair photos selfies of the DCM1, DCM2 to DCMn, when the digital result from both DCM inputs is lower than the X percentage but higher than the Y percentage (Tussy, the first remote server (server A) performs liveness checks or liveness verification to determine whether the 3D facescan (which represents an image of the user) represents a live user and was captured directly from a live, physical user, and thus not a photo, video, mask, image, spoof artifact, or some other representation made to look like a live person.) [Tussy, 0325].
Regarding claim 6, as responded to above, Tussy in view of Common-Sense, Huber and March-Networks teaches system and method, wherein in the event of the INS originating from a new user account opening is flagged as an F-AML-ATF-Selfie, by DCM1, then the next account login from that user is blocked (Tussy, If there is a reported fraudulent login, or if there are too many lockouts, the system may delete the account associated with the email address to protect the user's security. Thus, future fraudulent attempts could not be possible.) [Tussy, 0155].
Regarding claim 7, as responded to above, Tussy in view of Common-Sense, Huber and March-Networks teaches system and method, wherein in the event of the INS originating from a new user account opening is flagged as an F-AML-ATF-Selfie, by DCM1, then from the next account login onwards all account outgoing transactions or transactions considered critical or reducing the assets amount or assets value are blocked for all user accounts in the AIDB associated to that F-AML-ATF-Selfie (Tussy, If there is a reported fraudulent login, or if there are too many lockouts, the system may delete the account associated with the email address to protect the user's security. Thus, future fraudulent attempts could not be possible.) [Tussy, 0155].
Regarding claim 8, as responded to above, Tussy in view of Common-Sense, Huber and March-Networks teaches system and method, wherein in the event of the INS originating from a new user account opening is flagged as an F-AML-ATF-Selfie, by DCM2, then the account opening for that user is blocked (Tussy, If there is a reported fraudulent login, or if there are too many lockouts, the system may delete the account associated with the email address to protect the user's security. Thus, future fraudulent attempts could not be possible.) [Tussy, 0155].
Regarding claim 9 and represented claim 19, as responded to above, Tussy in view of Common-Sense, Huber and March-Networks teaches system and method, wherein the system server is adapted to require an account user to take a photo selfie with the custom device application software and the device sends it to the system server as an INS as a confirmation to some or all outgoing transactions or transactions considered critical or reducing the assets amount or assets value (Tussy, the images and/or the biometric template(s) from the user's device may be uploaded to the server where they can be stored and/or compared with the root identity biometric images and/or template(s).) [Tussy, 0269] and such transactions is only executed if the system server does not flag that INS as a F-AML-ATF-Selfie nor as a potential unconfirmed F-AML-ATF-Selfie (Tussy, If there is a reported fraudulent login, or if there are too many lockouts, the system may delete the account associated with the email address to protect the user's security. Thus, future fraudulent attempts could not be possible.) [Tussy, 0155].
Regarding claim 10, as responded to above, Tussy in view of Common-Sense, Huber and March-Networks teaches system and method, wherein, the particular time 10 seconds, then for example if bandwidth now (BWN) is 10Mb/sec then the highest camera hardware quality photo file size is set to be equal or lower then 100Mb, and if BWN is for example 0.5 Mb/s then the highest camera hardware quality photo file size is set to be equal or lower then 5Mb (Tussy, the system may check when a user is ready to begin scanning himself/herself, as well as determining the scan path. The data is thus used to determine when to start and stop the scan interval. The data may additionally include the time elapsed during scanning. This time may be measured from the user pressing the button to start and stop the imaging, or may be measured from the duration the button is held down while imaging, or during more movement or to complete sweep.) [Tussy, 0123].
Regarding claim 12, as responded to above, Tussy in view of Common-Sense, Huber and March-Networks teaches system and method, wherein the system server is adapted to allow external remote authorised and authenticated access to upload F-AML-ATF- Selfies directly into the FSDB, wherein the AML-ATF-Selfies are from legally allowed sources, such as for example from a third party authorised to share such AML-ATF-Selfies or extracted from publicly available press photos from people listed by governments as blacklisted individuals (Common-Sense, Google-Image database can be used by user to perform reverse image search, when a user initiates a search for an image, list of the similar images are presented to the user as a response) [Common-Sense, see at least page 1, 5, and 9].
Regarding claim 13 and represented claim 17, as responded to above, Tussy in view of Common-Sense, Huber and March-Networks teaches system and method, wherein the system server is adapted to perform a file conversion on each incoming photo selfie (INS) where first a number "x" of waypoints are identified on the photo selfie face, out of a total defined of "n" points, and wherein each distance between waypoint "x" to "x.n" is then used as the starting point as the distance between each combination of any other two waypoints as follows: "x" to "xl" is taken as the unit distance of one (UD1) and every other available distance "x" to "x2","x" to "x3" ... to "x" to "xn" are all stored relative to the magnitude of the UD1, for example x to x2 = 0.500 when it is half of the distance of UD1 or x to x3 = 1.357 when it is 1.357 times UD1, and "xn-1" to "xn" is taken as the unit distance of one (UDn) and every other available distance "xn-1" to "x","xn-1" to "xl"... to "xn-1" to "xn" are all taken as a magnitude of the UDn, for example xn-1 to x = 0.250 when a quarter of the distance of UDn or xn-1 to xl = 1.492 when it is 1.492 times UDn, and wherein the system server stores all the possible combinations of the INS waypoints distances as the conversion-INS (CINS) and uses the CINS the INS
PNG
media_image1.png
607
472
media_image1.png
Greyscale
[Tussy, Fig. 23 and associated disclosure].
Regarding claim 14 and represented claim 18, as responded to above, Tussy in view of Common-Sense, Huber and March-Networks teaches system and method, wherein the system server is adapted to perform a file conversion on each INS where first a number "n" of waypoints are identified on the photo selfie face, and wherein each distance between waypoint "x" to "x.n" is then used to convert the INS file into an array of bytes; wherein
in a first step, settling an array of "n" points on the face area of a photo selfie, and saving the relative position of one specific point, considered the Main Point of Comparison (MPOC) for this Biometric ID File (BIDF) based on a cartesian system, in FLOAT 32, and
in a second step, the rest of the points are stored considering their relative position with the MPOC using a char-based variable, which means that we can use a different base depending on the required accuracy set by the system server, and
in a third step, the following formula is used to calculate the required space for an INS with n points as follows: Converted-INS-file-Size = [1 point * 4 bytes + (n-1) * (required-bytes)] * 2 axis wherein required-bytes = (number of symbols / 256) * 2 bytes;
in a fourth step, the resulting arrays of bytes are then stored as the converted-INS (CINS) file representing the biometric face identification of the INS(Tussy, the images and/or the biometric template(s) from the user's device may be uploaded to the server where they can be stored and/or compared with the root identity biometric images and/or template(s).) [Tussy, 0269].
PNG
media_image1.png
607
472
media_image1.png
Greyscale
[Tussy, Fig. 23 and associated disclosure].
Regarding claim 16, as responded to above, Tussy in view of Common-Sense, Huber and March-Networks teaches system and method, wherein step "d" generates a notification each time the DCM1 detects a match and provides the info of the accounts, associated with the photo selfie pair that DCM1 matched, to an external source for further processing of such information, and wherein step "e-" generates a notification each time the DCM2 detects a match and provides the info of the photo selfie pair, associated with the DCM1 input that matched, to an external source for further processing of such information or as evidence for the authorities (Tussy, The liveness verification operations may use or be conducted with any type of software, hardware, or combination of both processing to determine if the 3D facemap is ofa live person and thus, not a picture, mask, video, mannequin, or some other spoof attempt. The outcome of the liveness check is either a determination that the user is live, failure. The reasons for the failure may be a spoof attempt or any other reason and the user is not notified of the reason. If the liveness processing determines that the user represented in the 3D facemap, that was just collected seconds ago is not live, then one or more systems (including the user) are notified and the process ends.) [Tussy, 0334].
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tussy US publication 2021/0011986 in view of Common-Sense published YouTube video “How to Use Google Reverse Image to Fact Check Images” hereinafter referred to as Common-Sense, Huber US Publication 2021/0398135, March Networks YouTube video “Save on Storage & Bandwidth with March Networks’ ME4 and SE2 Series IP Cameras” hereinafter referred to as March-Networks and ShortPixel published article “The Complete Guide to Image Compression: How to Reduce Image Sizes for Faster Sites” hereafter referred to as ShortPixel.
Regarding claim 11, Tussy in view of Common-Sense, Huber and March-Networks does not teach storing images as compressed images. However, ShortPixel teaches that
you can always improve its speed through digital image compression. It’s quick, easy, and painless; ShortPixel further teaches that data compression, or data compaction, refers to reducing the size of data files without affecting how the final result is loaded or viewed. Sometimes data compression has no effect on the final result (lossless), and sometimes it has a minimal or hardly perceivable effect (lossy). We’ll explain lossy vs. lossless image compression [ShortPixel, page 3].
Therefore, at the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Tussy in view of Common-Sense, Huber and March-Networks by adopting teachings of ShortPixel as store image in compressed format to reduce storage required to save data files.
as responded to above, Tussy in view of Common-Sense, Huber, March-Networks and ShortPixel teaches system and method, wherein the system server is adapted to perform a file compression on each INS and stores those compressed INS (CINS) in a system server database, wherein the compression is reduced to file size of a CINS lower then 500Kb, and once the system completes the check cycle of that INS, then the system server deletes the INS and only keeps the CINS stored in the system server compressed historical selfies database (CHSDB) (ShortPixel, as responded to above) [ShortPixel].
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06 January 2021 are for added limitations to the claimed invention which have been fully considered. While performing an updated search in view of pending amended invention, new prior arts were found which have been cited in this office action.
Therefore, applicant’s arguments and moot under new grounds of rejection, and have been responded to in Rejection under 35 USC 101 and 35 USC 103 section.
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 Naresh Vig whose telephone number is (571)272-6810. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 06:30a - 04:00p.
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, Ilana Spar can be reached at 571.270.7537. 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.
/NARESH VIG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3622
February 7, 2026