DETAILED ACTION
Notice relating to Pre-AIA or AIA Status
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 present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 20 APRIL 2026 has been entered.
Status of the Claims
Applicant’s current amendment (dated 20 APRIL 2026), has been entered. The status of the claims is as follows: Claims 1-16 are currently pending in the application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claims have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to the new reference(s) and/or citations being used in the current rejection.
Claim Warnings
Applicant is advised that should claims 3 and 11 be found allowable, claims 4 and 12 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicates thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-2, 4-6, 9-10, and 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jeanne et al., US 2019/0209052 in view of Sarwar et al., US 2012/0075473.
Regarding claim 1, Jeanne discloses a computer-implemented method for detecting liveness of a subject from a media stream, the computer-implemented method comprising:
capturing a media stream of the subject, the media stream including a sequence of frames (receiving/capturing a sequence of video frames, i.e. media stream; page 2, paragraph 21);
processing each frame of the media stream to track biometrics of the subject (based on the receive and processed frames, can identify a face area and extract/track biometric related data; page 2, paragraphs 21, 24, and 29); and
determining whether the subject in the media stream is live based on the one or more biometrics detected in the media steam (can determine if person is a living person, i.e. real/live; page 2, paragraph 22, and page 3, paragraph 50).
Jeanne does not explicitly disclose processing with two or more biometrics of a subject, including a combination of physiological and non-physiological characteristics.
In a related art, Sarwar does disclose processing with two or more biometrics of a subject, including a combination of physiological and non-physiological characteristics (system can utilize captured data in order to make analysis and determinations related to physiological features such as face/facial recognition and pulse/respiration rate, as well as nonphysiological, behavioral features such as user movements of their jaw, cheeks, lips, head, and/or clothing, and in order to determine a user is alive; page 2, paragraph 20, and pages 3-4, paragraphs 37-42).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the prior art of Jeanne and Sarwar by allowing different combinations and types of biometric data to be utilized with the already present biometric data of Jeanne, in order to provide an improved security system and method which includes facial recognition security features combined with determination as to whether an object captured in an image is a three-dimensional object (Sarwar; page 1, paragraph 4).
Regarding claim 2, Jeanne in view of Sarwar discloses the media stream includes one or more of a visible-light video stream, a near-infrared video stream, a longwave-infrared video stream, a thermal video stream, and an audio stream of the subject (Jeanne; receiving a sequence of video frames, i.e. media stream; page 2, paragraph 21, and wherein can include streams with lighting, such as controlled lighting or active/ambient light, i.e. visible-light and infrared; page 4, paragraphs 79 and 81 and 88-89).
Regarding claim 4, Jeanne in view of Sarwar discloses the biometrics includes pulse rate and respiration rate (Jeanne; with at least heart pulse; page 6, paragraph 114, and respiration rate and heart-beat; page 2, paragraph 32, and page 4, paragraph 84, and wherein any vital sign(s) can be used; page 4, paragraph 84).
Regarding claim 5, Jeanne in view of Sarwar discloses cropping each frame of the media stream to encapsulate a region of interest that includes one or more of a face, facial cheek, forehead, eye, eye pupil, chest or hand (Jeanne; region can be recognized, i.e. cropped to include the face area of a user; page 3, paragraphs 50 and 54, and page 5, paragraphs 94-95, and with a cropped, i.e. boxed, frame area, of a face; Fig. 5).
Regarding claim 6, Jeanne in view of Sarwar discloses the region of interest includes two or more body parts (Jeanne; face region can include at least eyes, mouth, nose, i.e. two or more body parts; page 5, paragraphs 94-95, and Figs. 4 and 5).
Claim 9, which discloses a system, is analyzed with respect to the citations and/or rationale provided in the rejection of similar claim 1. The following additional limitations are also disclosed:
a processor (Jeanne; with at least a processor; page 2, paragraph 20, and page 4, paragraph 90, and page 7, paragraph 153); and
a memory storing one or more programs for execution by the processor, the one or more programs including instructions (Jeanne; medium containing a computer readable program that when executed causes the computer to perform operations; page 2, paragraph 35, and page 7, paragraph 153, and including at least a specific memory; page 4, paragraph 90).
Claim 10, which discloses a system, is analyzed with respect to the citations and/or rationale provided in the rejection of similar claim 2.
Claim 12, which discloses a system, is analyzed with respect to the citations and/or rationale provided in the rejection of similar claim 4.
Claim 13, which discloses a system, is analyzed with respect to the citations and/or rationale provided in the rejection of similar claim 5.
Claim 14, which discloses a system, is analyzed with respect to the citations and/or rationale provided in the rejection of similar claim 6.
Claims 3 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jeanne et al., US 2019/0209052 in view of Sarwar et al., US 2012/0075473 and further in view of Jorasch et al., US 2021/0374391.
Regarding claim 3, Jeanne in view of Sarwar discloses all the claimed limitations of claim 1, as well as the biometrics include pulse rate and respiration rate (Jeanne; with at least heart pulse; page 6, paragraph 114, and respiration rate and heart-beat; page 2, paragraph 32, and page 4, paragraph 84, and wherein any vital sign(s) can be used; page 4, paragraph 84).
Jeanne in view of Sarwar does not explicitly disclose biometrics include eye gaze, eye blink rate, pupil diameter, face temperature, speech, and micro-expressions.
In a related art, Jorasch does disclose biometrics include pulse rate, eye gaze, eye blink rate, pupil diameter, face temperature, speech, respiration rate, and micro-expressions (biometric type data can include all and/or any of breathing rate, heart rate, body/skin temperature, i.e. including face, pupil dilation, i.e. diameter, eye gaze, blink rate, voice/speech quality/rate/pitch/rhythm, and microexpressions; page 37, paragraph 259, page 40, paragraph 274, and page 81, paragraph 764, and page 85, paragraph 824, and page 180, paragraphs 2011-2012, and page 182, paragraphs 2036-2037).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the prior art of Jeanne, Sarwar, and Jorasch by allowing different combinations and types of biometric data to be utilized with the already present biometric data of Jeanne in view of Sarwar, in order to provide an improved system and method for enhancing cameras with additional capabilities that can be used in security, surveillance, conferencing, streaming, and broadcasting (Jorasch; page 1, paragraphs 3 and 4).
Claim 11, which discloses a system, is analyzed with respect to the citations and/or rationale provided in the rejection of similar claim 3.
Claims 7-8 and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jeanne et al., US 2019/0209052 in view of Sarwar et al., US 2012/0075473 and further in view of Kirenko, US 2015/0223700.
Regarding claim 7, Jeanne in view of Sarwar discloses all the claimed limitations of claim 1, as well as video and different types of light streams (Jeanne; receiving a sequence of video frames, i.e. media stream; page 2, paragraph 21, and wherein can include streams with lighting, such as controlled lighting or active/ambient light, i.e. visible-light and infrared; page 4, paragraphs 79 and 81 and 88-89).
Jeanne in view of Sarwar does not explicitly disclose combining at least two of a visible-light stream, a near-infrared stream, and a thermal stream into a fused stream.
In a related art, Kirenko does disclose combining at least two of a visible-light stream, a near-infrared stream, and a thermal stream into a fused stream (system can utilize and combine transmitted channels/streams, which can include at least red, i.e. visible light, and IR, i.e. infrared; page 3, paragraph 37, and page 5, paragraph 71).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the prior art of Jeanne, Sarwar, and Kirenko by allowing the processing of Kirenko to be utilized with the already present streams/signals of Jeanne in view of Sarwar, in order to provide an improved system and method for determining vital signs of a subject having an increased signal-to-noise ratio and efficiency in reduction of artefacts caused by distortions, in particular by motion of the subject or disturbance from ambient light (Kirenko; page 2, paragraph 14).
Regarding claim 8, Jeanne in view of Sarwar and Kirenko discloses the visible-light video stream, the near-infrared video stream, and/or the thermal video stream are combined according to a synchronization device (Kirenko; can be combined with synchronization being performed; page 3, paragraphs 32 and 36, and page 5, paragraphs 63, 67, and 69, and Jeanne; receiving a sequence of video frames, i.e. media stream; page 2, paragraph 21, and wherein can include streams with lighting, such as controlled lighting or active/ambient light, i.e. visible-light and infrared; page 4, paragraphs 79 and 81 and 88-89).
Claim 15, which discloses a system, is analyzed with respect to the citations and/or rationale provided in the rejection of similar claim 7.
Claim 16, which discloses a system, is analyzed with respect to the citations and/or rationale provided in the rejection of similar claim 8.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RANDY A FLYNN whose telephone number is (571)270-5680. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday, 6:00am - 3:00pm ET.
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, BENJAMIN BRUCKART can be reached at 571-272-3982. 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.
/RANDY A FLYNN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2424
Prosecution Insights