DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-18 provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1-20 of copending Application No. US 2026/0024378 A1 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the more specific 1-20 anticipates the broder claims 1-18.
Claim(s) 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8 and 9,10,11,12,13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over GRIESER et al. (EP 3 889 922 A1) with SEARCH machine translation in view of YOSHIDA (WO 2019/132047 A1) with SEARCH machine translation.
Claim(s) 14-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by GRIESER et al. (EP 3 889 922 A1) with SEARCH machine translation.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements filed 8/6/2025 & 10/29/2025 & 2/3/2026 fails to comply with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97(a) because it lacks the appropriate size fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(v). It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered as to the merits.
The information disclosure statement filed 8/20/2024 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(2), which requires a legible copy of each cited foreign patent document; each non-patent literature publication or that portion which caused it to be listed; and all other information or that portion which caused it to be listed. It has been placed in the application file, but the information (page 16: there is no corresponding NPL in the record to “BLETSKO: Using Skin Color Motion for 3D Face Modeling and Synthesis and thus is not considered) referred to therein has not been considered.
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 1-18 not rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to improving a technical field of security more specifically face matching verification systems, applicant’s disclosure: US 2024/0346852 A1: [0001] without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) a mental process (comparing) (step 2A:prong 2). This judicial exception is not not integrated into a practical application because additional elements (“cannot be reverse processed”, claim 1 representative) reflect the improvement in applicant’s disclosure such as at [0386]) (step 2A:prong 2). The claim(s) does/do not not include additional elements (“cannot be reverse processed”, claim 1 representative) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because additional elements (“cannot be reverse processed”, claim 1 representative) is significantly more than the known, conventional (practical) and routine “proprietary1 encryption schemes” [0389] (step 2B).
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-18 provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1-20 of copending Application No. US 2026/0024378 A1 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the more specific 1-20 anticipates the broder claims 1-18.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented:
PNG
media_image1.png
1684
1520
media_image1.png
Greyscale
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.
Claim(s) 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8 and 9,10,11,12,13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over GRIESER et al. (EP 3 889 922 A1) with SEARCH machine translation in view of YOSHIDA (WO 2019/132047 A1) with SEARCH machine translation.
PNG
media_image2.png
657
339
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Re 1., GRIESER teaches A method of validating an item (fig. 7:ID card), having a graphic thereon, is associated with a person comprising:
capturing one or more images of the person’s face with a digital camera (fig. 8:802: “Kamera”);
processing the one or more images of the person’s face to generate2 a face (“(face) image data”, pg. 26, 6th txt blk) derived3
(A) feature (or “personal”--i.e. face-- “derived” “specific4 information”, pg. 6, 3rd txt blk)5 (&)6
(B) vector
data (mapped to both alternatives (A) & (B): or a “test image”: fig. 4A:404:face- “reference data”- “vector”-“recorded”-“characters and logos”: 6th txt blk: fig. 7), the face derived (A) feature (B) vector data representing the person’s face but not capable of being reverse processed (via “ an irreversible, information-loss-prone arithmetic function”, pg. 2, last txt blk) to generate the image of the person’s face from which it was derived;
capturing (fig. 8:802: “Kamera”) one or more images of the graphic on the item;
processing one or more of the images of the graphic (“machine-readable7 zone”, pg. 8, 1st txt blk) code (fig. 7: “MRZ”) to (electromagnetically) extract (via “generated”, pg. 26, 6th txt blk) graphic (or “graphic elements” “position data”, pg. 8, 3rd S)8 derived
(C) feature (“derived” “reference9 data 714,718”, pg. 25, 8th txt blk) (&)
(D) vector (“test”-“time”, pg. 26, 6th txt blk)10
data (mapped to both alternatives (C) & (D)) that is stored (via said “recorded”) inside the graphic code such that the graphic derived face feature vector (“test”-“time”) data cannot be reverse processed to generate the image of the person’s face from which it was derived;
comparing (via “a similarity indicator”, pg. 26, 6th txt blk) the (“issuing”, pg. 26, 6th txt blk) face derived feature vector data to the graphic (“test”-“time”) derived feature vector data to develop a similarity value;
comparing the similarity value to a first threshold (“1:1 ratio”, pg. 26, 6th txt blk) value, and based on the comparing to the first threshold value, generating a validation (“reference”, pg. 8, 5th txt blk or in general data comparison: pg. 10, 6th txt blk) indicator that represents the (strong) likelihood (via “The exact11 positions and/or sizes of individual further optically detectable features”, pg. 26, 3rd text blk) that the graphic, and hence the item having the graphic, is associated with the person (“understood to mean a data value or a set of data values which indicate the similarity12 (and thus implicitly also the dissimilarity) of two compared entities”, pg. 13, 6th txt blk) .
GRIESER does not teach the difference13 of claim 1 of:
a) (data that is stored) inside (the graphic code)14…15
b) first16 (threshold).
YOSHIDA is faces a similar problem as applicants (“authentication…face…error”, pg. 37, 3rd txt blk) and teaches the difference of claim 1:
a) (data that is stored) (“Encrypted information”, pg. 35, last txt blk) inside (“the first code”, pg. 90: “40.”) (the graphic code)17…18
b) (“a region having a high density of reference dots using a”) first (“code”-“predetermined threshold from the surrounding dark cells starting from the central coordinate value of the dark cell obtained by the first code”, pg. 51, 4th txt blk) (threshold).
Since GRIESER teaches security and faces a problem (“no…security… guarantee”, pg. 2, 3rd txt blk) as applicant’s, one of skill in the art of security can make GRIESER’s be as YOSHIDA’s seeing in the change “security can be enhanced by displaying only a part of the photo, date of birth, address and the like included in the read data, and hiding the other information”, YOSHIDA, pg. 39, 5th txt blk:
PNG
media_image3.png
716
1130
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Re 2., GRIESER of the combination of GRIESER,YOSHIDA teaches The method of claim 1, wherein the item is one of the following: driver’s license, identification card, passport, diploma, education transcript, credit card, debit card, airline ticket, shipping label, event ticket, voting ballot, or title of ownership (“An identity ocument can be, for example, an identity card, a passport, an employee ID or a personalized document of value (for example credit card)”, pg. 13, 2nd txt blk).
Re 3., GRIESER of the combination of GRIESER,YOSHIDA teaches The method of claim 1 wherein the face derived feature vector data comprises a string (“or document type-related alphanumeric character strings 710”, pg. 25, 8th txt blk) of alpha and numeric values that are (MRZ) encoded and stored in the graphic.
Re 4., GRIESER of the combination of GRIESER,YOSHIDA teaches The method of claim 1 wherein the item includes a picture of the person (“in particular a facial picture of the person”, pg. 4, 6th txt blk) .
Re 5., GRIESER of the combination of GRIESER,YOSHIDA teaches The method of claim 4 wherein the method further comprises:
capturing, with the camera, one or more photograph images (“of at least a part of a document by an optical sensor”, pg. 2, last text blk) of a photograph of the person’s face that is on the item;
processing the one or more photo images to generate a photograph derived face (E) feature (&)
(F) vector
data (mapped to Markush alternative (E): “them”-“derived”-“reference data”, pg. 22, last txt blk) which represents the person’s face but is not capable of being reverse processed to generate an image of the person shown in the photograph;
comparing (via said similarity indicator) the photograph derived face (E) feature (F) vector data to
(G) the face derived (A) feature (B) vector data (via at said test-time),
(H) the graphic derived (C) feature (D) vector data, or
(I) both
to develop a second similarity value;
comparing the second similarity (“recorded size”-“distance”, pg. 26, 5th txt blk) value to
(J) the first threshold value or
(K) a second threshold value, and
based on the comparing, generating a second validation indicator (“each”, pg. 7, 3rd txt blk).
Re 6., GRIESER of the combination of GRIESER,YOSHIDA teaches The method of claim 1 wherein the face derived feature vector data is created (via said generated) by a trusted (via said recognition) entity from a trusted face photo (via “recognizing…facial images”, pg. 22 8th txt blk resulting in recognized identified verified trusted face images) of the person.
Re 7., GRIESER of the combination of GRIESER,YOSHIDA teaches The method of claim 1 wherein the similarity value must be the same as or greater than (“not manipulated”, pg. 18 6th txt blk) threshold19 value for the item to be associated (via “to match…with the real face of the person on site”,pg. 17, 2nd S) with the person.
Re 8., GRIESER of the combination of GRIESER,YOSHIDA teaches The method of claim 1, further comprising transmitting (so that “The captured digital image 818 is transmitted to the image processing system 820”)
(E) the face derived (A) feature (B) vector data,
(F) the graphic derived (C) feature (D) vector data, or
(G) both
to a trusted entity and the trusted entity comparing (via “compares the calculated, depersonalized test data of the document 702 with the image reference data specifically stored for this document in the database 825and obtained from this database.”, pg. 18)
(E) the face derived (A) feature (B) vector data,
(F) the graphic derived (C) feature (D) vector data, or
(G) both
to a trusted face feature vector stored (“as part of the reference data”, pg. 26, 6th txt blk at the trusted entity.
Claim 9 is rejected like claim 1:
Re 9., GRIESER of the combination of GRIESER,YOSHIDA teaches A system to verify a document using a graphic located on the document, the system comprising:
a camera configured to capture at least one facial image of the person and a graphic image of the graphic located on the document;
a processor configured to execute machine readable code stored in a non-transitory state on a memory;
the memory storing the machine readable code in the non-transitory state, the machine readable code configured to:
process the at least one facial image to generate (via fig. 7: arrow) a face (or a “person”-“face”-“data set”, 4th txt blk) derived code (MRZ symbol “as a vector”, pg. 26, 6th txt blk or “data”20(-set) usually in the singular-verb sense: fig. 7:704), the face derived (vector-data) code representing the person’s face (via data-encoded “image reference data 712”, pg. 25, 8th txt blk: wavy-encoded face lines), but not capable of being reverse processed to generate a face image of the person from which it was derived;
process the graphic image to generate a graphic (fig. 7:704: raster-graphic data (encoded) in the singular verb-sense) extracted code, the graphic extracted code (resulting in the encoded face dataset/face image being a “raster graphic”, pg. 13, 4th text blk: fig. 7:704: data (encoded) in the singular verb-sense) representing the person’s face, but not capable of being reverse processed to generate an image of the person from which it was derived;
comparing (at test-time) the face derived code (from enrollment) to the
graphic extracted code (“recorded again”, pg. 26, 6th txt blk: fig. 7:704 recorded again at test-time) to develop a similarity value;
comparing the similarity value to a first threshold value, and
based on the comparing to the first threshold value, generating a validation indicator that represents the likelihood that the graphic extracted code, and hence the document, is associated with the person.
Claim 10 is rejected like claim 2:
Re 10., GRIESER of the combination of GRIESER,YOSHIDA teaches The system of claim 9 wherein the document comprises one of the following: driver’s license, title of ownership, school transcript, transaction check, identification card, event ticket or voting ballot.
Claim 11 is rejected like claim 3:
11., GRIESER of the combination of GRIESER,YOSHIDA teaches The system of claim 9 wherein the face derived code and the graphic extracted code comprise a string of alpha-numeric values and the graphic extracted code is stored in the graphic.
Claim 12 rejected like claim 5:
12. . GRIESER of the combination of GRIESER,YOSHIDA teaches The system of claim 9 wherein the machine readable code is further configured to:
capture one or more images of a face photograph, asserted to be the person, that is located on the document;
process the one or more images of the face photograph to generate
(A) a face (&)
(B) photograph
derived code which is not capable of being reverse processed to generate an image of the person;
comparing the (A) face (&) (B) photograph derived code to
(C) the face derived code,
(D) the graphic extracted code, or
(E) both
to develop a second similarity value;
comparing the second similarity value to the first threshold value or a second threshold value, and based on the comparing, generating a second validation indicator
Claim 13 is rejected like claim 8:
Re 13., GRIESER of the combination of GRIESER,YOSHIDA teaches The system of claim 9 further comprising transmitting the face derived code, the graphic extracted code, or both to a trusted entity and the trusted entity comparing the face derived code, the graphic extracted code, or both to trusted face feature codes stored or generated at the trusted entity.
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 14-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by GRIESER et al. (EP 3 889 922 A1) with SEARCH machine translation.
PNG
media_image4.png
657
339
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Claim 14 is rejected like claims 1 and 9:
Re 14., GRIESER of the combination of GRIESER,YOSHIDA teaches A method for verifying the validity of an identification document and identity of a person identified by the identification document comprising:
capturing one or more images of the graphic on the identification document;
processing one or more of the one or more images of the graphic to extract a graphic code, the graphic code comprising data derived from an image of the person’s face, but which cannot be reverse processed to identify the person from which it was derived;
transmitting the graphic code to a trusted entity (“to automatically recognize the document ID itself”, pg. 16, 2nd txt blk: fig. 8:820: “Bildbearbeit ungs-system”);
at the trusted entity, processing21 the
(A) graphic (MRZ) code (symbol) or
(B) other (face-image) data
sent to the trusted entity to search (“for certain landmarks”, pg. 25, 5th txt blk)
for2223 a
(C) matching2425 (expressed as “to match…information” (encoded) our way, pg. 3, 3rd txt blk) (&)26
trusted27
(D) face28 (&)29
(E) feature3031
code (only mapped to alternative (C) and not to (D) & (E)), the trusted (D) face (E) feature code comprising data derived from a person’s face, but which cannot be reverse processed to generate an image or likeness of a face from which it was derived32;
comparing (A) the graphic code to the trusted (D) face (E) feature code to develop a first similarity value33; and
providing the first similarity value to a requesting (“test system”, pg. 18, 3rd txt blk) entity34, the requesting entity comprising an entity that is requesting the (“document ID”) verification of the validity of the identification document and identity of the person identified by the identification document.
Claim 15 is rejected like claims 2 and 10:
Re 15., GRIESER of the combination of GRIESER,YOSHIDA teaches The method of claim 14, wherein the identification document is a driver’s license, passport, or an identification card.
Re 16., GRIESER of the combination of GRIESER,YOSHIDA teaches The method of claim 14 wherein the trusted entity is the entity that generated (“in the course of producing (issuing)”, pg. 15, 4th txt blk) the identification document.
Claim 17 is rejected like claims 5 and 12:
Re 17., GRIESER of the combination of GRIESER,YOSHIDA teaches The method of claim 14, wherein the identification document includes a photograph of a face, and the method further comprises:
capturing one or more images of the photograph of the face on the identification document with a digital camera;
processing (enrolling) the one or more images of the photograph to generate an
(F) identification (or “to identify”-“database”35, pg. 4, 7th txt blk) (&)
(G) document (&)
(H) photograph
code,
the (F) identification (G) document (H) photograph code is not capable of being reverse processed to generate the face in the photograph;
comparing the (F) identification (G) document (H) photograph code to3637 the trusted (D) face (E) feature code to develop a second similarity value38;
transmitting the second similarity value to the requesting (test-system) entity (“to output the result of the comparison on a display of the test system in order to induce the security personnel to let the person through or to deny access.”, pg. 18, last para).
Re 18., GRIESER of the combination of GRIESER,YOSHIDA teaches The method of claim 14 wherein the (A) graphic (MRZ) code includes information
(B) from text contained on the identification document or
(C) from an identity (“document ID data”, pg. 18, 3rd txt blk) record stored on an identity issuer’s database (825).
Conclusion
The prior art “nearest to the subject matter defined in the claims” (MPEP 707.05) made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
The following table lists several references that are relevant to the subject matter claimed and disclosed in this Application. The references are not relied on by the Examiner, but are provided to assist the Applicant in responding to this Office action.
Citation
Relevance
Tussy (US 2018/0181737 A1): same inventor
Tussy teaches dimensional changes are not easy to re-create:
[0166], last S: Further, because perspective distortion is expected when an actual, three-dimensional person is present, an absence of the relative change in the dimensions of the facial features alerts the system to a fraudulent attempt at authentication. This effect could not easily be re-created with a two-dimensional picture (printed photograph or screen) and thus, this step can serve as a secure test to prevent a two-dimensional picture (in place of a 3D face) from being used for authentication.
as the closest to the claimed: “the face derived feature vector data representing the person’s face but not capable of being reverse processed to generate the image of the person’s face from which it was derived” of claim 1.
Tussy (US 2019/0213311 A1)” same inventor
Tussy teaches:
[0029] The root biometric identity information may be derived from an image. In one configuration, an image of the user can not be re-created from the root biometric identity information.
as the closest to the claimed: “the face derived feature vector data representing the person’s face but not capable of being reverse processed to generate the image of the person’s face from which it was derived” of claim 1.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DENNIS ROSARIO whose telephone number is (571)272-7397. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9AM-5PM 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, Henok Shiferaw can be reached at 571-272-4637. 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.
/DENNIS ROSARIO/ Examiner, Art Unit 2676
/Henok Shiferaw/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2676
1 proprietary: (of a brand name, product, service, formula, etc.) protected by a patent, copyright, or trademark., wherein brand name is defined: a product, line of products, or service bearing a widely known brand name, wherein know is defined: be acquainted with (a thing, place, person, etc.), as by sight, experience, or report., wherein experience is defined: knowledge or practical wisdom gained from what one has observed, encountered, or undergone. (Dictionary.com)
2 Markush element of coordinate-adjective Markush alternatives follow: [(A) & (B)], wherein coordinate is defined: Grammar. of the same rank in grammatical construction, as Jack and Jill in the phrase Jack and Jill, or got up and shook hands in the sentence He got up and shook hands, wherein rank is defined: a class in any scale of comparison, wherein class is defined: Grammar. form class, wherein form class is defined: Grammar. a class of words or forms in a given language that have one or more grammatical features in common, as, in Latin, all masculine nouns (feature & vector) in the nominative singular, all masculine singular nouns (feature & vector), all masculine nouns (feature & vector), or all nouns (feature & vector).
3 “face derived” is a cumulative adjective
4 specific: peculiar or proper to somebody or something, as qualities, characteristics, effects, etc.., wherein characteristic is defined: a distinguishing feature or quality. (Dictionary.com)
5 Since GRIESER teaches coordinate-adjective Markush alternative (A), the Markush element [(A) & (B)] is taught under the broadest reasonable interpretation of claim 1
6 coordinate adjective test: data is a vector & feature or data is a feature & a vector: same
7 machine-readable: Computers. of or relating to data encoded on an appropriate medium and in a form suitable for processing by computer. (Dictionary.com)
8 Since GRISER teaches coordinate-adjective Markush alternative (E): graphic data, the Markush element [(E) & (F) &(G) & (H)] is taught under the broadest reasonable interpretation of claim 1
9 reference: a book or other source of useful facts or information, such as an encyclopedia, dictionary, etc., wherein fact is defined: a truth known by actual experience or observation; something known to be true, wherein true is defined: being or reflecting the essential or genuine character (i.e., a distinguishing feature) of something. (Dictionary.com)
10 Since GRIESER teaches Markush alternative (C), [(C) & (D)] is taught under the broadest reasonable interpretation of claim 1
11 exact: precise, as opposed to approximate, wherein precise is defined: definitely or strictly stated, defined, or fixed, wherein defined is defined: to fix or lay down clearly and definitely; specify distinctly, wherein definitely is defined: in a clear and definite manner; unambiguously, wherein definite is defined: positive; certain; sure, wherein certain is defined: that may be depended on; trustworthy; unfailing; reliable, wherein trustworthy is defined: deserving of trust or confidence; dependable; reliable, wherein trust is defined: confident expectation of something; hope, wherein expectation is defined: the degree of probability that something will occur, wherein probability is defined: a strong likelihood or chance of something. (Dictionary.com)
12 similarity: the state of being similar; likeness; resemblance, wherein likeness is defined: the state or fact of being like, wherein like is defined: corresponding or agreeing in general or in some noticeable respect; similar; analogous, wherein corresponding is defined: associated in a working or other relationship (Dictionary.com).
13 THE CLAIMED INVENTION AS A WHOLE regarding “inside”:
The problem faced by applicant, disclosure:
[0004] In addition, facial matching recognition is generally known and may be used in a variety of contexts. Two-dimensional facial image matching is commonly used to tag people in images on social networks or in photo editing software. Face matching and verification software, however, has not been widely implemented on its own to securely verify the identity or the continuity of users attempting to gain access to an account because is not considered secure enough. For example, two-dimensional facial matching is considered unsecure because faces may be photographed or recorded, and then the resulting prints or video displays showing images of the user may be used to trick the system. Accordingly, there is a need for reliable, cost-effective, and convenient methods to verify the identity
or continuity of users attempting to log in to, for example, an online account.
The solution to the not secure software is:
[0409] At a step 3924, the image ( digital data representing the image of the person) is processed to generate facial data, which is data representing the three-dimensional facial data. This data after processing may be referred to as a facemap. As discussed above, the facemap data is smaller in size than the images of the user. Then, at a step 3928 the facemap is processed to generate non-identifiable facial data (NIFD) that represents one or more aspects of the person's face. One example type of a NIFD is a facevector. The NIFD is data that represents the face of the person, but which cannot be reverse processed to re-create the image or likeness of person's face. Thus, the NIFD is data which cannot be reverse processed to identify the user, unless by comparison to similarly created NIFD data.
[0410] At a step 3932 the NIFD is further processed into a computer readable graphical code, such as the referred to UR™ code. This code can be imaged with a camera or scanner, and the resulting image is processed to convert the graphical code into an alphanumeric string. It is also contemplated that the graphical code may be scanned with a laser scanning system, such as a bar code reader to derive the
alpha-numeric string. As an optional step 3936, non-facial personal data (NFPD) may be collected from an ID card, document, a database, or from the user. The NFPD may comprise but is not limited to all or a portion of name, address, driver license number, full or partial social security number, date of birth, eye color, height, weight, location of birth or similar information. At step 3940, the created graphical code may be saved as a digital file, transmitted to a third party or entity as an image file for use on a digital screen, or printed directly onto a document or item.
I don’t see in claim 1:
At a step 3924, the image ( digital data representing the image of the person) is processed to generate facial data, which is data representing the three-dimensional facial data. This data after processing may be referred to as a facemap. As discussed above, the facemap data is smaller in size than the images of the user. Then, at a step 3928 the facemap is processed to generate non-identifiable facial data (NIFD) that represents one or more aspects of the person's face.
This absence of the disclosed solution is an indication of obviousness.
14 (italics) represent claim limitations already taught
15 ellipses (…) represent claim limitations already taught
16 “first threshold” does not make an appearance in the solution
17 (italics) represent claim limitations already taught
18 ellipses (…) represent claim limitations already taught
19 BROAD CLAIM LANGUAGE: threshold: a level or point at which something would happen, would cease to happen, or would take effect, become true, etc (Dictioanry.com)
20 data: (usually used with a singular verb) information in digital format, as encoded text or numbers, or multimedia images, audio, or video. (Dictionary.com)
21 Markush element of Markush alternatives follows: [(A) or (B)]
22 for: intended to belong to, or be used in connection with. (Dictionary.com)
23 Markush element of coordinate Markush alternatives follows: [(C) & (D) & (E)].
24 coordinate adjective
25 BROAD CLAIM LANGUAGE: -ing (of “matching”): a suffix of nouns formed from verbs, expressing the action of the verb or its result, product, material, etc. {GRIESER saying that a comparison match does not work this way but our comparison information way works this way} (the art of building; a new building; cotton wadding ). (Dictionary.com)
26 coordinate adject test: code is a trusted face & a trusted feature & a matching (noun-form): it makes sense
27 cumulative adjective
28 coordinate adjective
29 coordinate adjective test
30 coordinate adjective
31 Since GRISER teaches Markush alternative (C), the Markush element [(C) & (D) & (E)] is taught under the broadest reasonable interpretation of claim 14
32 This limitation is directed to Markush limitation (D)(E) that is already taught since Markush (C) is already taught
33 This limitation is directed to Markush limitation (D)(E) that is already taught since encoded- information-matching our-way Markush alternative (C) is already taught
34 This limitation is directed to Markush limitation (D)(E) that is already taught since encoded- information-matching our-way Markush alternative (C) is already taught
35 database: a comprehensive collection of related data datum organized for convenient access, generally in a computer, wherein data is defined: (usually used with a singular verb) information in digital format, as encoded text or numbers, or multimedia images, audio, or video. (Dictionary.com)
36 CLAIM SCOPE regarding “to”, applicant’s disclosure:
--Adaptations and modifications
[0161]Numerous modifications may be made to the above system and method without departing from the scope of the invention.—wherein scope is defined: Linguistics, Logic. the range of words (one of which is “code”) or elements of an expression (claims 14 & 17) over which a modifier (a patent examiner) or operator (or me) has control. (Dictionary.com)
37 to: (used for expressing addition or accompaniment) with. (Dictionary.com): a prepositional modifier
38 This limitation is directed to Markush limitation (D)(E) that is already taught since encoded- information-matching our-way Markush alternative (C) is already taught