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 Objections
Claim 10 is objected to because of the following informalities. Claim 10 currently recites “…wherein determining if the first embedding substantially matched the second embedding comprises enumerating over the record pool.”, where there is inconsistent verb usage. If appropriate, the examiner recommends that “matched” be replaced with “matches”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2 and 7-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Redwood et al. (US 2021/0117524; hereinafter “Redwood”).
Regarding Claim 1, Redwood discloses a method of machine learning for management of biometric data, the method comprising (see Fig. 7):
receiving, by a computing device, a digital biometric data from a biometric receiving device ([0070], Fig. 7, Redwood discloses obtaining facial pictures of a passenger (step 7202).);
converting the digital biometric data into a first embedding ([0070], Fig. 7, Redwood discloses obtaining a vectorized representation (i.e., embedding) of the facial picture (step 7203).);
causing to move a second embedding from a first storage medium to a second storage medium, the second storage medium having a different storage configuration than the first storage medium and being closer to a processor (Fig. 1, Fig. 7, [0070], Redwood discloses moving/transferring vectorized certified selfies (i.e., second embedding) from a central database to a cached stored memory located directly (i.e., closer) on an authentication device.); and
determining if the first embedding substantially matches the second embedding (Fig. 7, [0070], Redwood performs a comparison between the live vectorized facial photo (i.e., first embedding) with the vectorized certified selfies (i.e., second embedding) to authenticate an individual.).
Regarding Claim 2, Redwood discloses the method of claim 1, wherein receiving the digital biometric data comprises receiving the biometric data from an image capture device ([0030], Redwood discloses an authentication device consisting of a camera used for taking facial pictures.).
Regarding Claim 7, Redwood discloses the method of claim 1, wherein determining comprises determining if the first embedding substantially matches the second embedding using distance matching ([0037], Redwood discloses using a Euclidean distance to determine a similarity between two vectors.).
Regarding Claim 8, Redwood discloses the method of claim 7, wherein using the distance matching comprises using Euclidean Distance Matching ([0037], Redwood discloses using a Euclidean distance to determine a similarity between two vectors.).
Regarding Claim 9, Redwood discloses the method of claim 1, wherein causing to move the second embedding from the first storage medium to the second storage medium comprises causing to move the second embedding to a record pool (Fig. 1, Fig. 7, [0070], Redwood discloses moving/transferring vectorized certified selfies (i.e., second embedding) from a central database to a cached stored memory located directly (i.e., closer) on an authentication device. The Examiner asserts that the term “record pool” is interpreted as any pool/accumulation of records, which is analogous to the “plurality of vectorized selfies” obtained by the authentication device.).
Regarding Claim 10, Redwood discloses the method of claim 9, wherein determining if the first embedding substantially matched the second embedding comprises enumerating over the record pool (Fig. 7, [0070], Redwood discloses performing an authentication/matching step to determine if a live vectorized facial photo matches a plurality of vectorized certified selfies. The Examiner notes Step 7204-7205 where Redwood specifically discloses a “for-loop” for comparing one vectorized facial picture to many vectorized certified selfies.).
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 3-4 are rejected as being unpatentable over Redwood in view of Zhang et al. (US 2021/0397823; hereinafter “Zhang”).
Regarding Claim 3, Redwood discloses the method of claim 1.
Redwood does not explicitly disclose wherein converting the digital biometric data into the first embedding comprises converting the digital representation using a neural network (Note in [0036] Redwood discloses using ML algorithms for extraction of biometric data.).
Zhang discloses wherein converting the digital biometric data into the first embedding comprises converting the digital representation using a neural network ([0074-0076], Zhang discloses using a deep neural network to obtain a feature vector representing a face embedding.).
Redwood and Zhang are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention as they are in the same field of performing authentication using facial images. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Redwood by utilizing Zhang’s usage of a neural network in order to obtain a feature vector, which can be used to performing matching to determine authentication as disclosed by Redwood. The motivation for this combination being the ability to use a neural network that can be trained for a specific usage.
Regarding Claim 4, Redwood in view of Zhang teaches the method of claim 3, wherein converting the digital biometric data using the neural network comprises converting the digital representation into a fixed array of numbers ([0074-0076], Zhang discloses using a deep neural network to obtain a feature vector representing a face embedding. The Examiner asserts that the feature vector consists of an array of numbers, as noted in [0076].).
Claims 5 is rejected as being unpatentable over Redwood in view of S. Mathiassen and I. Mathiassen (US 2004/0123113; hereinafter “Mathiassen”).
Regarding Claim 5, Redwood discloses the method of claim 1.
Redwood does not explicitly disclose wherein causing to move comprises causing to move the second embedding from non-volatile memory to volatile memory.
Mathiassen discloses wherein causing to move comprises causing to move the second embedding from non-volatile memory to volatile memory ([0071], Mathiassen discloses accessing a master minutiae table of authorized users stored in non-volatile memory and comparing it to live minutiae table information stored in volatile memory.).
Redwood and Mathiassen are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention as they are in the same field of determining authentication/verification by comparing information obtained from different storage locations. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Redwood by incorporating Mathiassen’s disclosure of using two different storage architectures, such that the central database disclosed by Redwood is a form of non-volatile memory and the cache memory used by the authentication device is specifically a form of volatile memory. The motivation for this combination being the ability to use a stable form of memory to store the certified records, and being able to use a faster form of memory (volatile) to perform the authentication/matching step.
Claims 6 is rejected as being unpatentable over Redwood in view of Mathiassen in view of Das et al. (US 2018/0307899; hereinafter “Das”).
Regarding Claim 6, Redwood in view of Mathiassen teaches the method of claim 5.
Redwood in view of Mathiassen does not explicitly teach further comprising causing to move the second embedding from volatile memory to cache memory.
Das discloses further comprising causing to move the second embedding from volatile memory to cache memory ([0076], Das discloses a graphics multiprocessor containing multiple levels of cache (i.e., L1 and L2 cache), which transfer data between each layer. The Examiner notes the similarities in the cache architecture between Das’s disclosure the Applicant’s disclosure found in [0068-0069] and Fig. 6. Furthermore, the Examiner asserts that cache memory is considered to be a type of volatile memory, and therefore the transfer of data between L1 and L2 cache is considered to be a transfer of data between volatile memory to cache memory.).
Redwood, Mathiassen, and Das are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention as they are in the same field of determining authentication/verification by comparing information obtained from different storage locations. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Redwood in view of Mathiassen such that the cache storage disclosed by Redwood in view of Mathiassen incorporated the multi-level cache architecture disclosed by Das. The motivation for this combination being the ability to have a more specific and specialized cache architecture to improve efficiency.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PROMOTTO TAJRIAN ISLAM whose telephone number is (703)756-5584. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30 am - 5:00 pm EST.
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, Chan Park can be reached at (571) 272-7409. 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.
/PROMOTTO TAJRIAN ISLAM/Examiner, Art Unit 2669 /CHAN S PARK/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2669