ETAILED 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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), which papers have been placed of record on file.
Information Disclosure Statement(s)
The Information disclosure statement (IDS) filed on May 13th, 2024 has been acknowledged and considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims 14 and 15 are objected to under 37 CFR 1.75(c) as being in improper form because a multiple dependent claim, such as claim 14 recites “….process of any preceding claim,” and claim 15 recites “…any one of claims 1 to 13”. See MPEP § 608.01(n). Accordingly, the claims 14 and 15 have not been further treated on the merits. Appropriate correction is required.
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 14 and its dependent claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim 14 is drawn to a “computer program” per se, therefore, fail(s) to fall within a statutory category of invention, since applicant`s specification do not define the term “computer program product”.
A claim directed to a computer program itself is non-statutory because it is not:
A process occurring as a result of executing the program, or
A machine programmed to operate in accordance with the program, or
A manufacture structurally and functionally interconnected with the program in a manner which enable the program to act as a computer component and realize its functionality, or
A composition of matter.
See MPEP § 2106.01. Data structures not claimed as embodied in computer readable media are descriptive material per se and are not statutory because they are not capable of causing functional change in the computer. See, e.g., Warmerdam, 33 F.3d at 1361, 31 USPQ2d at 1760 (claim to a data structure per se held non-statutory). Such claimed data structures do not define any structural and functional interrelationships between the data structure and other claimed aspects of the invention, which permit the data structure's functionality to be realized. In contrast, a claimed computer readable medium encoded with a data structure defines structural and functional interrelationships between the data structure and the computer software and hardware components which permit the data structure's functionality to be realized, and is thus statutory. Similarly, computer programs claimed as computer listings per se, i.e., the descriptions or expressions of the programs are not physical “things.” They are neither computer components nor statutory processes, as they are not “acts” being performed. Such claimed computer programs do not define any structural and functional interrelationships between the computer program and other claimed elements of a computer, which permit the computer program's functionality to be realized.
Claims 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more nor integration into a practical application. The limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover mental process (concept performed in a human mind, including as observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). The claimed invention perform no more than performing steps of searching for probe image among a gallery and producing a candidate list with similarity scores based on a comparison of these scores and determine if the image is bona fide or morph, which are steps of mental process performable such as recited in claim 1. The dependent claims don’t limit further to overcome the deficiencies of claim 1. See analysis below for more details.
Regarding Independent Claim 1 and its dependent claims 2-15,
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 1 is directed to a process, which falls within one of the four statutory categories (process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter). Please see MPEP §2106.04.
Step 2A Prong 1 Analysis: Claim 1 recites, in part:
“A process
performing
producing
comparing
determining
The limitations as drafted, are processes that, under broadest reasonable interpretation, covers the performance of the limitation in the mind which falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Please see MPEP §2106.04. The limitations of:
“a process for detecting face morphing…” is an intended use.
“performing a probe one-to-many search for the probe image among a gallery” is a mental process activity abstract idea; particularly, steps of observation and evaluation mental processes, performing a … search for … image among a gallery.
“producing a probe candidate list from performing the probe one-to-many search…comprising a plurality of probe similarity scores” is a mental process activity abstract idea; particularly, steps of observation and evaluation mental processes, performing producing a …. list from performing a …. search for an image, wherein the list comprising some scores (observable condition of data/information).
“determining whether the probe image is a bona fide face…or a morph face image as a result of comparing….face morphing” is a mental process activity abstract idea; particularly steps of observation and evaluation, performing determining if an image if bona fide face or morph by comparing scores to detect face morphing.
Notes: under MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III), mental process (thinking) “can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper" to be an abstract idea. CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1372, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1695 (Fed. Cir. 2011): "methods which can be performed mentally, or which are the equivalent of human mental work, are unpatentable abstract ideas the ‘basic tools of scientific and technological work’ that are open to all." (citing Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 175 USPQ 673 [1972]). See also Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs. Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 71, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1965 ("mental processes and abstract intellectual concepts are not patentable, as they are the basic tools of scientific and technological work’" (quoting Benson, 409 U.S. at 67, 175 USPQ at 675).
The courts do not distinguish between mental processes that are performed entirely in the human mind and mental processes that require a human to use a physical aid (e.g., pen and paper or a slide rule) to perform the claim limitation. See, e.g., Benson, 409 U.S. at 67, 65, 175 USPQ at 674-75, 674; Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp., 839 F.3d 1138, 1139, 120 USPQ2d 1473, 1474 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Nor do the courts distinguish between claims that recite mental processes performed by humans and claims that recite mental processes performed on a computer, generic circuit or device, or the likes. See " Versata Dev. Group v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1335, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1702 (Fed. Cir. 2015). See also Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1318, 120 USPQ2d 1353, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (‘with the exception of generic computer-implemented steps, there is nothing in the claims themselves that foreclose them from being performed by a human, mentally or with pen and paper.’’).
Because both product/device and process claims may recite a "mental process", the phrase "mental processes" should be understood as referring to the type of abstract idea, and not to the statutory category of the claim. The courts have identified numerous product claims as reciting mental process-type abstract ideas, for instance the product claims to computer systems and computer-readable media in Versata Dev. Group. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 115 USPQ2d 1681 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong 2 Analysis: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. particular, the claim recites the following additional element(s) –
“…implemented by one or more processors…”
“obtaining, by at least one processor of a computing device, a probe image”
“…,by the least one processor,…” and analogous antecedent instances of this limitation.
The additional elements “implemented by one or more processors,” “by at least one processor of a computing device” - recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a processor performing executing instructions stored , a computer to have computer components executing the instructions of the invention, etc.) such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic components, devices, additional elements.
The additional element of “obtaining a probe image” include steps of insignificant extra-solution activity of data gathering [obtaining data/information of an image].
Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim as a whole is directed to an abstract idea. Please see MPEP §2106.04.(d).III.C.
Step 2B Analysis: there are no additional elements, such as for these additional elements as indicated above, that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Please see MPEP §2106.05. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. Please see MPEP §2106.05
For all of the foregoing reasons, claim 1 does not comply with the requirements of 35 USC 101.
Accordingly, the dependent claims 2-15 do not provide elements that overcome the deficiencies of the independent claim 1.
Moreover, claim 2 recites, in part,
“producing a plurality of morph face images, wherein each morph face image is produced from a pair of bona fide face images in a plurality of bona fide face images; producing the gallery comprising morph face images and the bona fide face images; performing a primary one-to-many search for each morph face image and for each bona fide face image among the gallery; producing, from performing the primary one-to-many search, a plurality of primary candidate lists, such that a primary candidate list is produced for every morph face image and for every bona fide face image, each primary candidate list comprising a plurality of primary similarity scores; selecting the highest primary similarity scores from each primary candidate list; analyzing the highest primary similarity scores between the morph face images and the bona fide face images; and producing the morph decision boundary between the highest primary similarity scores for the morph face images and the bona fide face images.”
Which includes processes of mental activities which the human mind can perform through observation and evaluation such as, the human mind can observe and compose to produce a set of images comprising already processed morph face image which is already given as being produced from bona fide face images and morph face images and performing a search for image among a gallery and determine similarity scores and generate a morph decision boundary between highest primary similarity scores such as recited in the claim.
Claims 3-4, 6 and 9 are claims that, each, provides further specification to what the abstract ideas and/or additional elements are based on, comprising of some observable general information, hence, still abstract ideas, insignificant additional elements.
Moreover, claim 5 recites, in part,
“the primary similarity scores ranked in sequential numerical ordering with the highest primary similarity scores listed sequentially before other primary similarity scores, with the highest primary similarity score listed first in the primary candidate list at rank1, the second highest primary similarity score listed second in the primary candidate list at rank2, and the lowest primary similarity score listed last in the primary candidate list.”
Which recites further specification to what the scores are of, which are ranked in such manner recited in the claim being such as, in sequential numerical ordering hence, just mere further specification of data/information.
Moreover, claim 7 recites, in part,
“validating the morph face images prior to producing the gallery from the morph face images and the bona fide face images.”
Which is a mental process abstract idea done through observation and evaluation such as, the human mind can validate the images mentally.
Moreover, claim 8 recites, in part,
“performing, for each morph face image, a one-to-one search that comprises: performing individual comparisons by comparing the morph face image individually with each bona fide face image from the pair of bona fide face images from which produced the morph face image as recited in claim 2, and producing a pair of validation similarity scores from the individual comparisons; comparing the pair of validation similarity scores to a threshold similarity score; adding the morph face images to the gallery when the pair of validation similarity scores is greater than the threshold similarity score, and otherwise not adding the morph face images to the gallery.”
Which include a series of mental process activities such as a human mind can perform through processes of observation and evaluation, such as the human mind can perform a search for image by comparing images and produce similarity scores using pen and paper and adding images into a gallery based on an observable condition such as recited in the claim.
Moreover, claim 10 recites, in part,
“rank ordering the probe similarity scores for the probe candidate list to provide the probe similarity scores ranked in sequential numerical ordering with the highest probe similarity scores listed sequentially before other highest probe similarity scores, with the highest probe similarity score listed first in the probe candidate list at rank1, the second highest probe similarity score listed second in the probe candidate list at rank2, and the lowest probe similarity score listed last in the probe candidate list.”
Which is a mental process activity abstract idea of observation and evaluation, judgement, merely performing ranking based on ordering o scores according to a certain observable condition and information.
Claims 11-13 are claims that, each, provides further specification to what the abstract ideas and/or additional elements are based on, comprises of, provides some observable general information, hence, still abstract ideas, insignificant additional elements.
Claim 14 recites, in part,
“a computer program comprising instructions that when executed by one or more processors of a computing system, cause the computing system to perform the process of any preceding claim.”
Which includes, under Step 2A Prong 2, features considered to be additional elements recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a processor performing executing instruction program stored, a computer system to perform the process of the program) such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic components, devices, additional elements.
Claim 15 recites, in part,
“one or more computing devices configured to perform the process of any one of claims 1 to 13.”
Which includes, under Step 2A Prong 2, features considered to be additional elements recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a computer system to perform the process of the program) such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic components, devices, additional elements.
Accordingly, the dependent claims 2-15 are not patent eligible under 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1 and 12-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kiran Bylappa Raja et. al. (“US2020/0175290 A1” hereinafter as “Raja”) in view of Wu Kangle et. al. (foreign patent document “CN 112613480 A” hereinafter as “Kangle”).
Regarding claim 1, Raja discloses a process implemented by one or more processors for detecting face morphing (abstract discloses a method for detecting morphed images):
obtaining, by at least one processor of a computing device, a probe image (figure 1 shows input image 13 [analogous to probe image], the invention is implemented by a computer with processor executing the instructions according to [0046]);
performing, by the at least one processor, a probe ([0054] discloses comparing morphed images from the database to the subjects from which the such as shown in figure 2, the comparison hence, is analogous to performing a search in a database for similar subject images);
producing, by the at least one processor, a probe candidate list from performing the probe ([0054] discloses the result of the comparison is a scattered comparison scores such as shown in figure 5, therefore, the scattered comparison scores is analogous to the recited probe candidate list since it comprising a plurality of comparison scores [probe similarity scores]);
comparing, by the at least one processor, the highest probe similarity scores of the probe candidate list to a morph decision boundary ([0076] discloses taking the scores greater than 36 as considered successful verifications, therefore, scores greater than 36, the threshold, are analogous to the highest probe similarity scores as claimed, and the threshold vertical line disclosed in [0076] as shown in figure 5, is analogous to the morph decision boundary as claimed); and
determining, by the at least one processor, whether the probe image is a bona fide face image or a morph face image as a result of comparing the highest probe similarity scores to detect face morphing ([0076] discloses the result of the verification thresholding is used to determine the image being morphed image or bona fide image such as disclosed in [0078 and 0101]).
PNG
media_image1.png
574
1078
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
909
874
media_image2.png
Greyscale
However, Raja does not explicitly disclose detecting face by one-to-many face recognition; performing, by the at least one processor, a probe one-to-many search for the probe image among a gallery; performing the probe one-to-many search for the probe image.
(mapping based on the translation section) In the same field of face image recognition based on image comparison (abstract and page 5, 1st par., Kangle) Kangle discloses detecting face by one-to-many face recognition (page 5, 1st par., discloses face detection processing by comparing face features based on the degree of similarity [analogous to the similarity scores as claimed and the comparison scores of Raja], which is done by one-to-many image matching and comparison); performing, by the at least one processor, a probe one-to-many search for the probe image among a gallery (the one-to-many image matching comparison of page 5, 1st par., for face detection to search for face image among a set of face images to find similarity degree); performing the probe one-to-many search for the probe image (the result of the one-to-many image matching comparison of page 5, 1st par., is the matched result, which is analogous to the recited searching for a probe image).
Thus, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Raja’s process of obtaining a probe image to perform a search for the probe image by the search among a gallery to produce a probe candidate list comprising of similarity scores to be compared the highest similarity scores with a morph decision boundary to determine a bona fide or morphed image, moreover, the search here is performed using a one-to-many search strategy as taught by Kangle to arrive at the claimed invention discussed above. Such a modification is the result of combing prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. The motivation for the proposed modification would have been to perform finding matched image through one-to-many image matching and comparison for face recognition more efficiently through comparing one to many matching processings (page 5, 1st par., Kangle).
Regarding claim 12, Raja in view of Kangle discloses the process of claim 1, wherein the gallery comprises a plurality of bona fide face images and morph face images
(
PNG
media_image3.png
102
514
media_image3.png
Greyscale
of Raja discloses the database [gallery] includes images of pairs of subjects [bona fide images of real subject] and corresponding morphed images, and further explained in [0114]).
Regarding claim 13, Raja in view of Kangle discloses wherein the morph decision boundary provides a partition between a bona fide image space and a morph image space for classifying the highest probe similarity scores (Raja’s [0076] discloses the vertical line indicates verification threshold value corresponding to the target FAR, which partition the comparison scores that are successful at verifications and unsuccessful at verifications, the verification here is verification of morphed and real image such as shown in figure 5 and figure 1).
Regarding claim 14, Raja in view of Kangle discloses a computer program comprising instructions that when executed by one or more processors of a computing system, cause the computing system to perform the process of any preceding claim (Raja’s [0046] discloses the invention executed by a computer executing a program by a processor for the invention of any of the preceding rejected claims 12 and 13 above).
Regarding claim 15, Raja in view of Kangle discloses one or more computing devices configured to perform the process of any of claims 1 to 13 (Raja’s [0046] discloses the invention executed by a computer executing a program by a processor for the invention of any of the preceding rejected claims of the claims 1 and 12 above).
Pertinent Prior Art(s)
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Sandipan Banerjee et. al., “Fast Face Image Synthesis with Minimal Training, Jan. 2019, 2019 IEEE Winter Conference on Applications of Computer Vision” discloses an algorithm to generate realistic face images of both real and synthetic identities (abstract) with a decision boundary used to partition real and bad images (figure 2.d) and using feature maps of these two images to create and compose images of identity in a gallery to be stored for training of neural network (section 3.1, “Pooling Proximal Faces: Hypercolumns” section).
James A. Mccombe et. al., “US 2021/0192188 A1” discloses generating facial signatures for subject’s face in images of a given human user (abstract) based on generating a candidate list based on matching scores ([0384-0385]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 2 and its dependent claims 3-9 and claim 10 and its dependent claim 11 carry allowable subject matter, however, currently are dependent on the prior art rejected independent claim 1, at the same time all the claims are rejected under 101, would be allowable if overcome all of these issues.
Regarding claim 2, the closest prior arts of Raja discloses the process of claim 1, further comprising:
producing a plurality of morph face images, wherein each morph face image is produced from a pair of bona fide face images in a plurality of bona fide face images ([0010] discloses morphing is to generate synthetically generated facial image using unique information from two or more different source face images corresponding to two or more different subjects.);
producing the gallery comprising morph face images and the bona fide face images ([0057] discloses the database [gallery] includes images of pairs of subjects [bona fide images of real subject] and corresponding morphed images);
performing a primary ([0054] discloses comparing morphed images from the database to the subjects from which the morphed image was created; moreover, the database includes both morphed images and normalized images of pairs of subjects according to [0057], therefore, the comparison can be understood to perform on both bona fide image and morphed image in the database, and each of the images is being compared to);
producing, from performing the primary one-to-many search, a plurality of primary candidate lists, ([0054] discloses the result of the comparison is a scattered comparison scores such as shown in figure 5, therefore, the scattered comparison scores is analogous to the recited probe candidate list since it comprising a plurality of comparison scores [probe similarity scores])
selecting the highest primary similarity scores from each primary candidate list ([0054] discloses the result of the comparison is a scattered comparison scores such as shown in figure 5, therefore, the scattered comparison scores is analogous to the recited probe candidate list since it comprising a plurality of comparison scores [probe similarity scores]);
analyzing the highest primary similarity scores between the morph face images and the bona fide face images ([0076] discloses the comparison scores being higher than the verification threshold [highest similarity scores] being analyzed and verified for detection of morph face images and bona fide face images according to [0078-0087]); and
producing the morph decision boundary ([0076] discloses the vertical line being used as a morph detection boundary for successful verification).
(mapping based on the translation section) In the same field of face image recognition based on image comparison (abstract and page 5, 1st par., Kangle) Kangle discloses performing a primary one-to-many search for each morph face image and for each bona fide face image among the gallery (page 5, 1st par., discloses face detection processing by comparing face features based on the degree of similarity [analogous to the similarity scores as claimed and the comparison scores of Raja], which is done by one-to-many image matching and comparison).
Raja in view of Kangle does not explicitly disclose producing, from performing the primary one-to-many search, a plurality of primary candidate lists, such that a primary candidate list is produced for every morph face image and for every bona fide face image, each primary candidate list comprising a plurality of primary similarity scores; producing the morph decision boundary between the highest primary similarity scores for the morph face images and the bona fide face images.
Regarding claim 10:
(103 reference: Rebecca Louise Heyer, “Understanding one-to-many unfamiliar face matching in the operational context: The Impact of Candidate List Size, Expertise, and Decision Aids on the Performance of Facial Recognition System Users, October 2013, A Thesis Submitted for the Award of Doctor of Philosophy, University of Adelaide” hereinafter as ”Heyer”) Heyer discloses rank orderinghighest probe similarity scores (page 88, 2nd to the last par., discloses ranking the potential matches in the candidate list for similar face images matching), with the highest probe(figure 28 shows the result of algorithm 1 wherein the ranking ordering is numbered from sequential numbering from rank 1 to rank 3541 of candidate list of search result).
The prior art Heyer does not disclose the crossed out features of the claims such as shown above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PHUONG HAU CAI whose telephone number is (571)272-9424. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30 am - 5:00pm.
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, Chineyere Wills-Burns can be reached at (571) 272-9752. 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.
/PHUONG HAU CAI/Examiner, Art Unit 2673
/CHINEYERE WILLS-BURNS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2673