DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Double Patenting Analysis
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).
It is noted that when current application is compared with U.S. Patent No. 12, 205, 404, 12/019, 721 for obviousness-type double patenting they are patentably distinct from each other and cannot be anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s) and for that reasons, nonstatutory double patenting rejection with reference application is not feasible at this time. However, based on response filed, Examiner will re-consider reference application for obviousness-type double patenting.
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 USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The 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/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
1. U.S. Patent No. 10949517 B2
Claim 21-40 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 10949517 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because all the claimed limitations recited in pending application are transparently found in U.S. Patent No. 10949517 B2 with obvious wording variation. For example, compare Claim 21 of pending application with claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 10949517 B2, they both recite
A system, comprising (A system for identification system enrollment and validation, comprising): at least one non-transitory storage medium that stores instructions (at least one non-transitory storage medium that stores instructions);
at least one processor that executes the instructions to (at least one processor, communicably coupled to the communication component, that executes the instructions to):
receive a digital representation of a person's face (receive a digital representation of a biometric for a person from a personal electronic device associated with the person via the communication component, the digital representation of the biometric corresponding to a face of the person in a sequence of images or video);
receive a recording that monitored capture of the digital representation of the person's face, the recording comprising iris dilation responses to a sequence of lights presented during the capture of the digital representation of the person's face (receive monitoring of capture of the digital representation of the biometric via the communication component, the monitoring comprising iris dilation responses to a sequence of colored lights presented during the capture of the digital representation of the biometric, the iris dilation responses being obtained from the sequence of images or video); and
determine whether the digital representation of the person's face is genuine by using the iris dilation responses in the recording (determine whether the digital representation of the biometric is genuine using the monitoring by using the iris dilation responses to determine that the face is genuine)
Further, analyzing and comparing dependent claims 22-30 of the pending application with claims 2-20 of U.S. Patent No. 10949517 B2 it was found that they recite the same limitation with wording changes.
2. U.S. Patent No. US 11934500 B2
Claim 21-40 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1-20 of Patent No. US 11934500 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because all the claimed limitations recited in pending application are transparently found in Patent No. US 11934500 B2 with obvious wording variation. For example, compare Claim 21 of pending application with claim 1 of Patent No. US 11934500 B2, they both recite
A system, comprising (A system for identification system enrollment and validation, comprising): at least one non-transitory storage medium that stores instructions (at least one non-transitory storage medium that stores instructions);
at least one processor that executes the instructions to (at least one processor, communicably coupled to the communication component, that executes the instructions to):
receive a digital representation of a person's face (receive a digital representation of a biometric for a person from a personal electronic device associated with the person via the communication component, the digital representation of the biometric corresponding to a face of the person in a sequence of images or video);
receive a recording that monitored capture of the digital representation of the person's face, the recording comprising iris dilation responses to a sequence of lights presented during the capture of the digital representation of the person's face (eceive monitoring of capture of the digital representation of the biometric via the communication component, the monitoring comprising iris dilation responses to a sequence of colored lights presented during the capture of the digital representation of the biometric, the iris dilation responses being obtained from the sequence of images or video); and
determine whether the digital representation of the person's face is genuine by using the iris dilation responses in the recording (determine whether the digital representation of the biometric is genuine using the monitoring by using the iris dilation responses to determine that the face is genuine)
Further, analyzing and comparing dependent claims 22-30 of the pending application with claims 2-16 of Patent No. US 11934500 B2 it was found that they recite the same limitation with wording changes.
Note the issued claims of Patent No. 10949517 B2 and Patent No. US 11934500 B2 are narrower in scope such that the claimed limitations as recited in pending application are encompassed by U.S. Patent No. 10949517 B2 and Patent No. US 11934500 B2 respectively.
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.
Claim 21-40 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”. Claim(s) 21-40 is/are directed to Abstract Idea such as an idea standing alone such as an instantiated concept, pan or scheme, as well as a mental process (thinking) that “can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper for example using measurement received from a mobile device, transmitting from the source relay node to a donor access node.
The apparatus and the method claim 21 and 31 recites limitation, “instructing presentation of a sequence of lights during capture of a digital representation of a face of a person; recording at least one still image or video monitoring of the capture of the digital representation of the person's face; determining whether the at least one still image or video includes iris dilation responses corresponding to the sequence of lights; and upon determining that the at least one still image or video includes iris dilation responses corresponding to the sequence of lights, determining that the digital representation of the person's face is genuine”. Since the claim is directed to a process and a machine, which is one of the statutory categories of the invention (Step 1: YES).
The claim is then analyzed to determine whether it is directed to any judicial exception. The claim recites
recording at least one still image or video monitoring of the capture of the digital representation of the person's face; determining whether the at least one still image or video includes iris dilation responses corresponding to the sequence of lights; and upon determining that the at least one still image or video includes iris dilation responses corresponding to the sequence of lights, determining that the digital representation of the person's face is genuine. The recording and capturing face step, determining step of whether still image or video includes dilation response and then determining if the person face is genuine recited in the claim is no more than an abstract idea i.e., limitations that can practically be performed in the human mind, etc. i.e., "collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis," where the data analysis steps are recited at a high level of generality such that they could practically be performed in the human mind, Electric Power Group v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353-54, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1741-42 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (Step 2A: Prong One Abstract Idea=Yes).
The claim is then analyzed if it requires an additional elements or a combination of additional elements in the claim to apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception – i.e., limitation that are indicative of integration into a practical application: improving to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field. In the current claims, there is no additional elements that would integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (Step 2A: Prong Two Abstract Idea=Yes).
Next the claim as a whole is analyzed to determine if there are additional limitation recited in the claim such that the claim amount to significantly more than an abstract idea. The claim requires the additional limitation of a computer with the central processing unit, memory, a printer, an input and output terminal and a program. These generic computer components are claimed to perform the basic functions of storing, retrieving and processing data through the program that enables. In the current scenario, there are no additional elements that would amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, the claim does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself (Step 2B: No). Accordingly, the claim is not patent eligible.
Further, dependent claims do not add any positive limitation or step that recite within the scope of the claim and does not carry patentable weight they are also rejected for the same reasons as independent claims.
Claim Objections
Claim 22 is objected to because of the following informalities: Applicant is claiming in claim 22, “wherein the recoding comprises…”. Examiner is assuming applicant is trying to claim “wherein the recording comprises…”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 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) 21-36, 38, 40 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hoyos et al. Pub. No. US 20150363986 A1
Regarding Claim 21, Hoyas teaches a system, comprising (fig. 4 and 5C and Para 104, vehicle can include a user interface authorizing a user to access a vehicle):
at least one non-transitory storage medium that stores instructions (Fig. 2A memory 120);
at least one processor that executes the instructions to (Fig. 2A Processor 110):
receive a digital representation of a person's face (Fig. 4 Step 410 and Para 107, captures the user's current biometric information where according to Para 28 biometric can be used for example face, Iris, periocular, or even voice, vein pattern etc. In addition, biometric authentication can also include “liveness” detection systems to verify that a “real person” is trying to access the system and/or complete a transaction);
receive a recording that monitored capture of the digital representation of the person's face (Fig. 4 Step420 and Para 109, the user is biometrically authenticated according to the one or more current biometric identifiers. Using the current biometric identifiers, the user's identity can be authenticated by comparing the biometric identifiers to one or more stored biometric identifiers that were previously generated during the enrollment process or subsequent authentication sessions i.e., receive a recording that monitored capture of the digital representation of the person's face),
the recording comprising iris dilation responses to a sequence of lights presented during the capture of the digital representation of the person's face (Para 57, the imagery is captured for the purpose of biometrically identifying/authenticating the user from the images. In addition, the cameras can capture imagery for the purpose of monitoring one or more occupants/users of the vehicle including, detecting facial expressions, movement, body-language, monitoring vital signs and other biometric indicators of various conditions. For instance, a thermal IR camera can be used to capture imagery of one or more users in the vehicle that are useable by the processor to detect core body temperature, heart-rate etc. Visible light or NIR and IR cameras can be used to detect pupil dilation (e.g., for detecting altered state/intoxication), eyes-closing (e.g. biometric signs of sleepiness), monitor vital signs like pulse and respiratory rate, detect facial expressions (e.g., to detect mood/behavior) i.e., recording comprising iris dilation responses to a sequence of lights presented during the capture of the digital representation of the person's face); and
determine whether the digital representation of the person's face is genuine by using the iris dilation responses in the recording (Para 110 and Fig. 4 Step 425, step 425, the user can be further authenticated by verifying the user's liveness. In some implementations, liveness of the user can be determined by comparing at least current liveness information with the previously generated liveness information and determining whether the liveness information matches to a requisite degree. As noted above, verifying the user's liveness can also include analyzing the captured biometric and non-machine-vision information and/or liveness identifier(s) to determine whether they exhibit characteristics of a live subject to a prescribed certainty i.e., determine whether the digital representation of the person's face is genuine by using the iris dilation responses in the recording).
Regarding Claim 22, Hoyas teaches wherein the recoding comprises a sequence of images or video (Para 94).
Regarding Claim 23, Hoyas teaches wherein the digital representation of the person's face is at least one of contained within a sequence of images or video or obtained from the sequence of images or video (Para 94 and 139).
Regarding Claim 24, Hoyas teaches wherein the iris dilation responses are obtained from a sequence of images or video (Para 139).
Regarding Claim 25, Hoyas teaches wherein the at least one processor further executes the instructions to enroll the person in a biometric identification system (Para 100).
Regarding Claim 26, Hoyas teaches wherein the sequence of lights includes a first colored light and a second colored light (Para 57).
Regarding Claim 27, Hoyas teaches wherein the digital representation of the person's face is received from a mobile electronic device (Para 68 and Para 107).
Regarding Claim 28, Hoyas teaches wherein the sequence of lights are produced by at least one light emitting diode (Para 56).
Regarding Claim 29, Hoyas teaches wherein the at least one processor further executes the instructions to authenticate an identity of the person (Para 109).
Regarding Claim 30, Hoyas teaches wherein the at least one processor further executes the instructions to store the digital representation of the person's face for subsequent biometric identification (Para 100).
Regarding Claim 31, it has been rejected for the same reasons as claim 21.
Regarding Claim 32, Hoyas teaches wherein the digital representation of the person's face is genuine if the digital representation of the person's face is obtained from a live person (Para 110).
Regarding Claim 33, Hoyas teaches wherein the at least one still image or video and the digital representation of the person's face are captured using a same image capture device (Para 94 and Fig. 2A Unit 56).
Regarding Claim 34, Hoyas teaches further comprising performing an action upon determining that the digital representation of the person's face is genuine (Para 110).
Regarding Claim 35, Hoyas teaches further comprising attempting to identify the person using the digital representation of the person's face.
Regarding Claim 36, Hoyas teaches further comprising determining whether the person is authorized to perform an action (Para 111).
Regarding Claim 38, Hoyas teaches further comprising using the digital representation of the person's face to verify whether the person is who the person claims to be (Para 111).
Regarding Claim 40, Hoyas teaches further comprising receiving biographic information for the person (Para 71).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, 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) 37 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hoyos et al. Pub. No. US 20150363986 A1 in view of Vemury Pub. No. US 20170032485 A1
Regarding Claim 37, Hoyas does not specifically teach that wherein the digital representation of the person's face comprises a hash of an image of the person's face.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Vemury teaches that biometric information hashing will be primarily discussed, biometric information or a combination of biometric and biographic information can be hashed as appropriate. Hash 626 can be used to map biometric information captured in, for example, an electronic fingerprint image to generate a hash code that is indicative of the image (Para 212).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the method of Hoyas with the method of Vemury so that computation burdens on the system or device performing the method is reduced in comparison to handling/processing underlying information for example the biometric image information (See Vemury Para 214).
Claim(s) 39 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hoyos et al. Pub. No. US 20150363986 A1 in view of Javier Galbally Iris Liveness detection based on quality related features dated 2012
Regarding Claim 39, Hoyos does not specifically teach wherein the digital representation of the person's face and the at least one still image or video are received from different devices.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Javier Galbally teaches from Fig. 1 and Sec 3 Database that the database is divided into a train set (comprising 200 real images and their corresponding fake samples corresponding to the first 25 users in the database) where the feature selection process and the classifier training are performed, and a totally independent test set (with the remaining 600 real and fake samples corresponding to the last 75 users of the database) to evaluate the performance of the proposed liveness detection approach i.e., digital representation of the person face and Fig. 1 and Sec 2 Liveness detection system where an input is given to the system using a camera i.e., the at least one still image or video are received from different devices.
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the method of Hoyas with the method of Javier Galbally so as to improve the robustness of the system against direct attacks and increasing the security level offered to the user (See Javier Galbally Introduction Para 3).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Kursun Pub. No. US 20200184053 A1 - System used for bio-metric authentication modelling, comprises a controller, which has multiple memory devices with computer-readable program code that is stored and the multiple communication devices is connected to a network
Benini et al. Pub. No. US 20180181794 A1 - Method for determining likeness of subject face, involves analyzing reflection image with processor to identify reflections of likeness detection image in reflection image, and making likeness determination with processor based on analysis
Fisher et al. Pub. No. US 20180124047 A1 - High Assurance Remote Identity Proofing
Summerlin et al. Pub. No. US 20180082304 A1 - SYSTEM FOR USER IDENTIFICATION AND AUTHENTICATION
Ananthanpillai et al. Pub. No. US 20180075563 A1 - RADIAL DATA VISUALIZATION SYSTEM
Gordon et al. Pub. No. US 20170346817 A1 - AUTHENTICATION BASED ON GAZE AND PHYSIOLOGICAL RESPONSE TO STIMULI
Mapen et al. Pub. No. US 20170286790 A1 - Biometric Enrollment Systems And Methods
Smith et al. Pub. No. US 20170249660 A1 - Methods and Apparatuses for Electronic Verification
Livesay et al. Patent. No. US 9491160 B2 - Method and apparatus for remote identity proofing service issuing trusted identities
Ramaci Pub. No. US 20160224773 A1 - BIOMETRIC AUTHENTICATION SYSTEM
Prabhakar Pub. No. US 20150071503 A1 - APPARATUSES AND METHODS FOR IRIS BASED BIOMETRIC RECOGNITION
Berini et al. Pub. No. US 20130215275 A1 - ENROLLMENT KIOSK INCLUDING BIOMETRIC ENROLLMENT AND VERIFICATION, FACE RECOGNITION AND FINGERPRINT MATCHING SYSTEMS
Yamada et al. Pub. No. US 20100148922 A1 - BIOMETRIC AUTHENTICATION DEVICE AND METHOD, COMPUTER-READABLE RECORDING MEDIUM RECORDED WITH BIOMETRIC AUTHENTICATION COMPUTER PROGRAM, AND COMPUTER SYSTEM
Mellen et al Pub. No. US 20090080708 A1 - SMART IDENTITY SYSTEM
Ewe et al. Pub. No. US 20060008124 A1 - Iris image-based recognition system
Revolution in Authentication Process by Using Biometrics – 2011
Input Images in Iris Recognition System: A case study - 2011
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NIZAR N SIVJI whose telephone number is (571)270-7462. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7-4.
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, Alison Slater can be reached at (571) 270-0375. 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.
NIZAR N. SIVJI
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2647
/NIZAR N SIVJI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2647
Prosecution Insights