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 .
Comments
The Preliminary Amendment filed on March 22, 2024 has been entered and made of record.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference characters:
“300” has been used to designate both Method (Figure 4, Paragraph [0048]) and System (Figure 15, Paragraph [0060]);
“310” has been used to designate both Assess strength of biometric ID (Figure 4, Paragraph [0048]) and Recent biometrics (Figure 15, Paragraph [0060]);
“320” has been used to designate both Retrieve biometric ID from database (Figure 4, Paragraph [0049]) and Historic Security Level transactions (Figure 15, Paragraph [0060]);
“330” has been used to designate both Retrieve and Process parameters (Figure 4, Paragraph [0049]) and Biometric Feature extraction technology (Figure 15, Paragraph [0060]);
“340” has been used to designate both Determine expected biometric matching accuracy (Figure 4, Paragraph [0049]) and Hard and soft Biometrics (Figure 15, Paragraph [0060]);
“350” has been used to designate both Generate biometric matching score (Figure 4, Paragraph [0049]) and Standardization adherence (Figure 15, Paragraph [0060]); and
“360” has been used to designate both Determine severity level of authentication procedure (Figure 4, Paragraph [0049]) and Biometric Score Calculator (Figure 15, Paragraph [0060]).
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description:
Reference numerals “101”, “102”, “103”, “104”, “105”, and “106” shown in Figure 2;
Reference numerals “401”, “402”, and “403” shown in Figure 3;
Reference numerals “601” and “602” shown in Figure 5;
Reference numeral “600” shown in Figure 6 and Figure 7;
Reference numerals “700” and “710” shown in Figure 7; and
Reference numerals “820”, “830”, “840”, “850”, and “860” shown in Figure 8.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claims 8, 9, 10, 12, 18, and 20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 8 lines 4-5: “comparing the biometric characteristics extracted from the captured biometric information” should read -- comparing the biometric characteristics determined from the extracted biometric information --
Claim 9 line 3: “determining, based on the matching score” should read -- determining, based on the biometric matching score –
Claim 9 lines 8-9: “the user biometric ID” should read -- the user biometric ID profile --
Claim 9 lines 10-11: “the biometric ID” should read -- the biometric ID profile --
Claim 10 lines 2-3: “biometric authentication strength level of a biometric ID profile of a user” should read -- biometric authentication strength level of a biometric ID profile of the user --
Claim 12 line 5: “the neural network” should read -- the trained neural network --
Claim 18 line 5: “the neural network” should read -- the trained neural network --
Claim 20 line 5: “the neural network” should read -- the trained neural network --
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the corresponding image capturing device” in lines 12-13. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear if the corresponding image capturing device, as claimed, is referring back the image capturing device used to capture the acquired at least one image of the user (e.g., claim 1 lines 4-5), or any other image capturing device. See also, paragraphs [0013]-[0014] of the originally filed specification. Claims 2-20 depend upon claim 1.
Claim 8 recites the limitation “the extracted set of biometric characteristics” in line 9. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claims 9-12 and 17-20 depend upon claim 8.
Claim 8 recites the limitation “the reference set of biometric characteristics” in lines 9-10. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 11 recites the limitation “the step of updating the biometric ID profile of the user” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 12 recites the limitation “the time drifting profile” in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. However, it appears to be the time drifting biometric ID profile and has been treated as such. Affirmation of this is required by the appropriate amendment.
Claim 15 recites the limitation “the matching accuracy” in lines 5-6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 18 recites the limitation “the time drifting profile” in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. However, it appears to be the time drifting biometric ID profile and has been treated as such. Affirmation of this is required by the appropriate amendment.
Claim 20 recites the limitation “the time drifting profile” in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. However, it appears to be the time drifting biometric ID profile and has been treated as such. Affirmation of this is required by the appropriate amendment.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “biometric processing module” in claim 14.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 1-4, 6-8, and 13-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Perna et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2016/0012292) in view of Gallagher (U.S. Pub. No. 2004/0150726).
As to claim 1, as best understood, Perna et al. teaches a method for extracting, at a biometric management system, biometric characteristics of a user from one or more images, the method comprising:
acquiring at least one image of a user captured by an image capturing device (i.e., “the input image 101 is an infrared image, and is captured by an infrared capture device”, Paragraph [0033]);
extracting biometric information associated with the user from the at least one captured image (i.e., “pre-processor 102 segments and normalizes the iris in the input image 101 … The result of the pre-processor 102 is a modified iris image with clearly delineated iris boundaries and synthesized quasi-frontal presentation”, Paragraph [0034]); and
processing the extracted biometric information to determine biometric characteristics of the user (i.e., “coding processor 104 analyzes and encodes iris information from the iris image generated by the pre-processor 102”, Paragraph [0035]),
wherein the step of determining the biometric characteristics of the user comprises:
determining a relative optical distortion introduced in the biometric information extracted from each image by the corresponding image capturing device (i.e., “approximate correction for the optical distortion discussed above can be achieved by measuring and correcting the effects of pupil eccentricity and pupil elongation”, Paragraph [0067])
if an optical distortion is detected, applying a corrective filter to the extracted biometric information to compensate for the detected optical distortion (i.e., “applying a geometric transformation”, Paragraph [0062]; and “The described transformation is then applied to the underlying image 460”, Paragraph [0068]),
wherein the corrective filter is selected based on optical distortion information extracted from each image during the processing of the extracted biometric information (See for example, “the image is corrected for the perspective distortion, i.e., the foreshortening of the iris that occurs. The effect of foreshortening can be approximated as a simple compression of the captured image in the direction or tilt. This effect can therefore be compensated for by simply stretching the image in the direction derived from the tilt estimation step. A more accurate correction can also be performed by using a projective transformation to more precisely capture the foreshortening effect”, Paragraph [0066]); and
extracting the biometric characteristics of the user from the compensated biometric information (i.e., “The result of this mapping (with appropriate interpolation) is shown in image 476. After the pupil and iris areas/regions have been shifted to be in concentric circles, the coding process can be more accurately performed with better matching results”, Paragraph [0068]), or if an optical distortion is not detected, from the extracted biometric information.
However, Perna et al. does not explicitly disclose the corrective filter is selected from a communicatively coupled filter database.
Gallagher teaches the selection of a corrective filter (i.e., “the correction parameters 18 could be the coefficients of a digital filter”, Paragraph [0027]) from a communicatively coupled filter database (See for example, Paragraph [0026]; and “correction database 26”, Paragraph [0028]).
Perna et al. and Gallagher are analogous art because they are from the field of digital image processing for optical distortion correction.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify Perna et al. by incorporating the selection of the corrective filter from a communicatively coupled filter database, as taught by Gallagher.
The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to improve the image quality of images from unknown sources in which digital image processing can be used to correct for deterministic capture problems.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Gallagher with Perna et al. to obtain the invention as specified in claim 1.
As to claim 2, Perna et al. teaches wherein determining the relative optical distortion comprises comparing the at least one image with stored images (i.e., Paragraph [0069]; and “the module 1514 compares the usable portion of the iris image identified in block 193 to one or more reference images (e.g., the reference images 1836)”, Paragraph [0133]).
However, Perna et al. does not explicitly disclose the stored images captured from different image capturing devices. Perna et al. teaches the usage of different devices in an iris biometric recognition-enabled system (See for example, “The iris processor 100 may be modular and each processor may be implemented, e.g., on a single device, multiple devices, in the cloud as a service”, Paragraph [0032]; and “mobile device 2100”, Paragraph [0140]). Thus, the inclusion of different image capturing devices for enrollment and authentication is taught by Perna et al.
Therefore, in view of Perna et al. and Gallagher, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Perna et al. by incorporating the stored images are images captured from different captured devices, as suggested by Perna et al., in order to utilize images that have been captured with different view of the iris.
As to claim 3, Perna et al. teaches wherein determining the relative optical distortion comprises comparing the extracted biometric information from each captured image with a reference set of undistorted biometric information associated with the user stored in a biometric ID profile of the user obtained from a profile database of the biometric management system (i.e., Paragraph [0069]; and “the module 1514 compares the usable portion of the iris image identified in block 1932 to one or more reference images (e.g., the reference images 1836)”, Paragraph [0133]).
As to claim 4, Perna et al. teaches wherein the relative optical distortion is determined based on a comparison of stored images of the user captured at different points in time (i.e., “These images may be compared to a historical database (e.g., templates in a historical database)”, Paragraph [0047]; and Paragraph [0153]).
As to claim 6, Perna et al. does not explicitly disclose wherein the optical distortion information comprises any one, or a combination, of an image optical distortion value introduced in each image by a camera lens of the corresponding image capturing device, a relative optical distortion value introduced in each image in relation to images captured by different image capturing devices, and an optical distortion value introduced by a detected facial expression.
Gallagher teaches the optical distortion information comprises any one, or a combination, of an image optical distortion value introduced in each image by a camera lens of the corresponding image capturing device, a relative optical distortion value introduced in each image in relation to images captured by different image capturing devices, and an optical distortion value introduced by a detected facial expression (See for example, “Metadata refers to non-image data that is associated with an image. Metadata may refer to information such as camera manufacturer, camera model number, information indicating whether the camera flash was fired, the lens focal length”, Paragraph [0025]; and Paragraph [0027]).
Therefore, in view of Gallagher, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Perna et al. by incorporating the optical distortion information comprises any one, or a combination, of an image optical distortion value introduced in each image by a camera lens of the corresponding image capturing device, a relative optical distortion value introduced in each image in relation to images captured by different image capturing devices, and an optical distortion value introduced by a detected facial expression, as taught by Gallagher, in order to perform an accurate optical distortion correction according to a specific lens characteristic from the image capturing device.
As to claim 7, Perna et al. does not explicitly disclose wherein the step of determining the biometric characteristics of the user further comprises the step of updating the corrective filter with the optical distortion information extracted from each image during the processing of the extracted biometric information.
However, Perna et al. teaches the use of a transformation (e.g., filter) to correct for the effect of optical distortion extracted from an during the processing of the extracted biometric information (See for example, Paragraphs [0062] and [0067]). Therefore, the corrective filter is based on the optical distortion information extracted from each image.
Therefore, in view of Perna et al. and Gallagher, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Perna et al. by incorporating the step of updating the corrective filter with the optical distortion information extracted from each image during the processing of the extracted biometric information, in order to always use a corrective filter that accounts for the optical distortion measured in each image.
As to claim 8, as best understood, Perna et al. teaches wherein the step of determining the biometric characteristics of the user further comprises:
comparing the biometric characteristics extracted from the captured biometric information with the biometric characteristics (i.e., “the module 1514 compares the usable portion of the iris image identified in block 1932 to one or more reference images (e.g., the reference images 1836)”, Paragraph [0133]) stored in a corresponding biometric ID profile of the user stored in a profile database of the biometric management system (i.e., “storing the reference images 1836, iris matching data/rules 2024, and/or iris imager configuration data/rules 2026, in a data storage device 2080”, Paragraph [0151]); and
determining a biometric matching score indicative of the matching accuracy between the extracted set of biometric characteristics and the reference set of biometric characteristics (i.e., “match score”, Paragraph [0082]; and Paragraph [0135]).
As to claim 13, Perna et al. teaches wherein the biometric information is obtained from a face scan, a fingerprint scan, an iris scan, or a vein scan (See for example, “The input image 101 contains an eye with an at least partially visible iris and pupil and the iris processor 100 attempts to match that eye with an iris of an eye image in a local or remote database of eye images”, Paragraph [0033]).
As to claim 14, Perna et al. teaches a biometric management system (See for example, “iris biometric recognition-enabled system 2000”, Paragraph [0144]) comprising: a profile database (i.e., “data storage device 2080”, Paragraph [0151]) configured for storing biometric ID profiles of registered users, each comprising biometric characteristics of a user (i.e., “reference images 1836, iris matching data/rules 2024, and/or iris imager configuration data/rules 2026, in a data storage device 2080”, Paragraph [0151]); and a biometric processing module (i.e., “iris biometric recognition module 2010”, Paragraph [0144]) configured for executing the method of claim 1.
However, Perna et al. does not explicitly disclose the corrective filter is selected from a communicatively coupled filter database.
Gallagher teaches the selection of a corrective filter (i.e., “the correction parameters 18 could be the coefficients of a digital filter”, Paragraph [0027]) from a communicatively coupled filter database (See for example, Paragraph [0026]; and “correction database 26”, Paragraph [0028]).
Therefore, in view of Gallagher, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Perna et al. by incorporating the selection of the corrective filter from a communicatively coupled filter database, as taught by Gallagher, in order to improve the image quality of images from unknown sources in which digital image processing can be used to correct for deterministic capture problems.
As to claim 15, as best understood, Perna et al. teaches a biometric security system (See for example, “iris biometric recognition-enabled system 2000”, Paragraph [0144]) comprising:
a plurality of biometric authentication touchpoints (i.e., “The iris processor 100 may be modular and each processor may be implemented, e.g., on a single device, multiple devices, in the cloud as a service”, Paragraph [0032]; and “mobile device 2100”, Paragraph [0140]), each configured to authenticate a user during a biometric authentication procedure (i.e., “The matched iris data 108 may be used in many instances, for example, to authenticate a user”, Paragraph [0037]) based at least on a biometric matching score being within a corresponding target biometric matching value range, the biometric matching score being indicative of the matching accuracy between the biometric characteristics of a user contained in a stored biometric ID profile and biometric characteristics extracted from one or more images of the user (See for example, Paragraphs [0082]-[0083]); and
a biometric management system according to claim 14 communicatively coupled to the plurality of the biometric authentication touchpoints, the biometric management system being configured, at the request of a biometric authentication touchpoint, to communicate the biometric ID profile of a registered user (Refer to claim 14 above, and to Paragraph [0152]),
wherein each biometric authentication touchpoint is configured to select a biometric authentication procedure for authenticating the user based at least on the biometric matching score assigned to the corresponding biometric ID profile of the user (i.e., “iris matching data/rules 2024 (e.g., access control logic or business logic for determining when an iris match has occurred and what to do when an iris match does or does not occur)”, Paragraph [0149]).
However, Perna et al. does not explicitly disclose the corrective filter is selected from a communicatively coupled filter database.
Gallagher teaches the selection of a corrective filter (i.e., “the correction parameters 18 could be the coefficients of a digital filter”, Paragraph [0027]) from a communicatively coupled filter database (See for example, Paragraph [0026]; and “correction database 26”, Paragraph [0028]).
Therefore, in view of Gallagher, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Perna et al. by incorporating the selection of the corrective filter from a communicatively coupled filter database, as taught by Gallagher, in order to improve the image quality of images from unknown sources in which digital image processing can be used to correct for deterministic capture problems.
As to claim 16, Perna et al. teaches wherein the relative optical distortion is determined based on a comparison of stored images of the user captured at different points in time (i.e., “These images may be compared to a historical database (e.g., templates in a historical database)”, Paragraph [0047]; and Paragraph [0153]).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Perna et al. in view of Gallagher as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Gottemukkula et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2017/0076145). The teachings of Perna et al. and Gallagher have been discussed above.
As to claim 5, Perna et al. and Gallagher do not explicitly disclose wherein determining the optical distortion comprises: identifying a facial expression of the user in each image; associating, based on stored information, the detected facial expression with a predetermined optical distortion type; and selecting, based on the detected optical distortion, a corresponding corrective filter for compensating for the optical distortion introduced by the facial expression.
Gottemukkula et al. teaches identifying a facial expression of the user in each image (See for example, “motion may be caused due to changing expressions, eye and body movements and/or environmental aberrations. Motion can be measured using correlation across frames, mutual information across frames, etc.”, Paragraph [0060]); associating, based on stored information, the detected facial expression with a predetermined optical distortion type (i.e., “an image-based distance metric or similar detects user poses, lighting conditions, or facial gestures that might distort some biometric regions of interest such as periocular. These variations can be induced during enrollment or added to a rolling template bank based on a template update policy”, Paragraph [0165]); and selecting, based on the detected optical distortion, a corresponding corrective filter for compensating for the optical distortion introduced by the facial expression (See for example, Paragraphs [0165]-[0166]).
Perna et al., Gallagher and Gottemukkula et al. are analogous art because they are from the field of digital image processing for optical distortion reduction.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to further modify Perna et al. and Gallagher by incorporating the determination of the optical distortion comprises: identifying a facial expression of the user in each image, associating, based on stored information, the detected facial expression with a predetermined optical distortion type, and selecting, based on the detected optical distortion, a corresponding corrective filter for compensating for the optical distortion introduced by the facial expression, as taught by Gottemukkula et al.
The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to take into account facial gestures when enrolling and matching biometric images.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Gottemukkula et al. with Perna et al. and Gallagher to obtain the invention as specified in claim 5.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Perna et al. in view of Gallagher as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Cohen et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2022/0058248). The teachings of Perna et al. and Gallagher have been discussed above.
As to claim 11, as best understood, Perna et al. and Gallagher do not explicitly disclose wherein the step of updating the biometric ID profile of the user comprises assigning to the biometric ID profile of the user an expected expiration date, wherein assigning the expected expiration date is based on the determined biometric matching score and on a time drifting biometric ID profile of the user indicating an expected change of the biometric characteristics of the user over time.
Cohen et al. teaches the step of updating the biometric ID profile of the user comprises assigning to the biometric ID profile of the user an expected expiration date (i.e., “biometric data may be assigned various expiration dates”, Paragraph [0036]), wherein assigning the expected expiration date is based on the determined biometric matching score (See for example, Paragraph [0064]) and on a time drifting biometric ID profile of the user indicating an expected change of the biometric characteristics of the user over time (i.e., “A predictive model may be used to determine (e.g., estimate, predict, forecast) the biometric feature changes over time. For example, if features in the fingernail image move, translate, or rotate over time, then a predictive model may determine the new position due to the change and generate biometric data corresponding to the new position of the features”, Paragraph [0036]).
Perna et al., Gallagher and Cohen et al. are analogous art because they are from the field of digital image processing.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to further modify Perna et al. and Gallagher by incorporating the step of updating the biometric ID profile of the user comprises assigning to the biometric ID profile of the user an expected expiration date, wherein assigning the expected expiration date is based on the determined biometric matching score and on a time drifting biometric ID profile of the user indicating an expected change of the biometric characteristics of the user over time, as taught by Cohen et al.
The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to account for biometric features that slowly change over time.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Cohen et al. with Perna et al. and Gallagher to obtain the invention as specified in claim 11.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9, 10, 12, and 17-20 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the closest prior art made of record fails to disclose, teach, and/or suggest, inter alia, the method of claim 8, and further comprising wherein the step of determining the biometric characteristics further comprises the step of: determining, based on the matching score, a biometric authentication strength level of the stored biometric ID profile of the user, which biometric authentication strength level is indicative of a set of security measures and/or security checks to be performed at each security touchpoint to authenticate the user, and if the determined biometric authentication strength level of the user biometric ID is within a predefined threshold, issuing a notification to an electronic device of a user indicating that the biometric characteristics stored in the biometric ID need to be updated; or the method of claim 11, and further comprising, wherein the time drifting biometric ID profile of the user is generated by a trained neural network based on historical biometric information extracted from images of the user over a period of time captured by one or more image capturing devices, and wherein the neural network is configured for updating the stored biometric ID profile of the user based on the generated time drifting biometric ID profile of the user to compensate for differences occurring in the biometric characteristics introduced over time, as claimed.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSE M TORRES whose telephone number is (571)270-1356. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday; 10:00 AM to 6:00 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, Jennifer Mehmood can be reached at 571-272-2976. 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.
/JOSE M TORRES/Examiner, Art Unit 2664 05/28/2026
Prosecution Insights