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 .
DETAILED ACTION
1. The office action is filed in response to the communication filed 6/6/2024.
Information Disclosure Statement
2. The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 6/6/2024 was filed after the mailing date of the instant application. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections – 35 USC 103
3. 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 may not be obtained through the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.
4. Claims 1-7, 10-11, and 20 are rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Yerli (US 2022/0070236) in view of Riley et al (US 2022/0183616).
With respect to claim 1, Yerli teaches a computing platform comprising:
at least one processor (fig. 1, ‘104);
a communication interface communicatively coupled to the at least one processor (fig. 1 & par [0014], “user interface”); and
memory storing computer-readable instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor (fig. 1, ‘106), cause the computing platform to:
receive, from an initiating user device, an event processing request (par [0063], lines 1-5, “client device requesting access”);
generate, using reflectance transformation imaging (RTI) (par [0071], lines 18-22, “reflectance parameters”), a first three-dimensional representation of the event processing request (par [0071], lines 20-31, “3D authentication”);
wherein a combination of the first three-dimensional representation and the second three-dimensional representation produces a complete three-dimensional representation of the event processing request (par [0008], lines 8-16 and par [0010], lines 16-20, which disclose graphically combining user graphical 3D representations), and wherein the second three-dimensional representation is produced via communication between the recipient user device and the computing platform without transmitting any three-dimensional representation to the recipient user device (fig. 6A, ‘612, “insertion into and combination with virtual environment”);
generate, using the first three-dimensional representation and the second three-dimensional representation, the complete three-dimensional representation (fig. 6B, ‘610 “image processing combination 2…image processing combination 3…”);
identify whether the complete three-dimensional representation is validated (par [0071], lines 1-20, which discloses determining if the captured 3D representation data from the user is authenticated); and
based on identifying that the complete three-dimensional representation is validated, process the event processing request (par [0072], lines 1-20 which discloses authenticating the user’s access request upon authentication of the provided 3D user graphical representation).
Yerli does not explicitly teach sending, to a recipient user device, RTI transformation information indicating transformation actions to be performed, using RTI, to produce a second three-dimensional representation of the event processing request.
However, Riley et al teaches sending, to a recipient user device, RTI transformation information indicating transformation actions to be performed (par [0074], which discloses presenting data corresponding to an identification or lack of identification of a first or second facial anomaly), using RTI, to produce a second three-dimensional representation of the event processing request (fig. 5-7 & par [0038-0040], which disclose generating first and second images corresponding to the detected facial anomalies).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Riley et al within the disclosure of Yerli because incorporating the feature of analyzing user-related data for anomalous data (as disclosed in par [0003] of Riley et al), would allow the disclosure of Yerli to improve user authentication by only authenticating users that provide facial recognition without any detected anomalies would allow Riley et al to prevent user’s with malicious intent to be authenticated if their provided facial graphical images don’t match the correct graphical representation of the user.
With respect to claim 2, Yerli and Riley et al teach the limitations of claim 1.
Yerli further teaches wherein the event processing request comprises a request to process a transaction (par [0063], lines 1-6).
Regarding claim 3, Yerli teaches wherein generating the first three-dimensional representation comprises: generating an initial three-dimensional representation of the event processing request (fig. 1, ‘120, “user graphical representation”).
Yerli does not explicitly teach modifying, using RTI, the initial three-dimensional representation to include one or more unique surface phenomena signatures.
However, Riley et al teaches modifying, using RTI, the initial three-dimensional representation to include one or more unique surface phenomena signatures (fig. 10 & par [0110], “example surface signatures”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Riley et al within the disclosure of Yerli according to the motivation disclosed regarding claim 1.
Regarding claim 4, Yerli does not explicitly teach modifying, using RTI, the initial three-dimensional representation to include one or more unique surface phenomena signatures.
However, Riley et al teaches modifying, using RTI, the initial three-dimensional representation to include one or more unique surface phenomena signatures (fig. 10, “signature 2.0 S.D.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Riley et al within the disclosure of Yerli according to the motivation disclosed regarding claim 1.
Regarding claim 5, Yerli does not explicitly teach wherein the one or more unique surface phenomena signatures comprise adjustments of shading in the initial three-dimensional representation.
However, Riley et al teaches wherein the one or more unique surface phenomena signatures comprise adjustments of shading in the initial three-dimensional representation (fig. 10, par [0108], lines 2-10, & par [0110], lines 1-10).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Riley et al within the disclosure of Yerli according to the motivation disclosed regarding claim 1.
Regarding claim 6, Yerli does not explicitly teach wherein the memory stores additional computer-readable instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the computing platform to: generate, after generating the first three-dimensional representation, a unique surface template designed to fit into the first three-dimensional representation to generate the complete three-dimensional representation, wherein the RTI transformation information is defined by the unique surface template.
However, Riley et al teaches wherein the memory stores additional computer-readable instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the computing platform to:
generate, after generating the first three-dimensional representation, a unique surface template designed to fit into the first three-dimensional representation to generate the complete three-dimensional representation (fig. 10 & par [0110], “surface signatures”), wherein the RTI transformation information is defined by the unique surface template (fig. 10 & par [0110], “surface comparison”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Riley et al within the disclosure of Yerli because incorporating the feature of analyzing user-related data for anomalous data (as disclosed in par [0003] of Riley et al), would allow the disclosure of Yerli to improve user authentication by only authenticating users that provide facial recognition without any detected anomalies would allow Riley et al to prevent user’s with malicious intent to be authenticated if their provided facial graphical images don’t match the correct graphical representation of the user.
With respect to claim 7, Yerli and Riley et al teach the limitations of claim 1.
Yerli further teaches wherein the memory stores additional computer-readable instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the computing platform to:
based on identifying that the three-dimensional representation is validated, enable viewing, by the recipient user device, of details corresponding to the event processing request (par [0070-0071] and par [0278], “authenticated through the user graphical representation”).
Regarding claim 10, Yerli does not explicitly teach wherein the recipient user device is located outside a protected network associated with the computing platform.
However, Riley et al teaches wherein the recipient user device is located outside a protected network associated with the computing platform (par [0069], “external processing device (e.g., processing device 42)”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Riley et al within the disclosure of Yerli according to the motivation disclosed regarding claim 1.
With respect to claim 11, Yerli teaches a method comprising:
at a computing platform comprising at least one processor (fig. 1, ‘104); a communication interface (fig. 1 & par [0014], “user interface”); and memory (fig. 1, ‘106):
receiving, from an initiating user device, an event processing request (par [0063], lines 1-5, “client device requesting access”);
generating, using reflectance transformation imaging (RTI) (par [0071], lines 18-22, “reflectance parameters”), a first three-dimensional representation of the event processing request (par [0071], lines 20-31, “3D authentication”);
wherein a combination of the first three-dimensional representation and the second three-dimensional representation produces a complete three-dimensional representation of the event processing request (par [0008], lines 8-16 and par [0010], lines 16-20, which disclose graphically combining user graphical 3D representations), and wherein the second three-dimensional representation is produced via communication between the recipient user device and the computing platform without transmitting any three-dimensional representation to the recipient user device (fig. 6A, ‘612, “insertion into and combination with virtual environment”);
generating, using the first three-dimensional representation and the second three-dimensional representation, the complete three-dimensional representation (fig. 6B, ‘610 “image processing combination 2…image processing combination 3…”);
identifying whether the complete three-dimensional representation is validated (par [0071], lines 1-20, which discloses determining if the captured 3D representation data from the user is authenticated); and
based on identifying that the complete three-dimensional representation is validated, process the event processing request (par [0072], lines 1-20 which discloses authenticating the user’s access request upon authentication of the provided 3D user graphical representation).
Yerli does not explicitly teach sending, to a recipient user device, RTI transformation information indicating transformation actions to be performed, using RTI, to produce a second three-dimensional representation of the event processing request.
However, Riley et al teaches sending, to a recipient user device, RTI transformation information indicating transformation actions to be performed (par [0074], which discloses presenting data corresponding to an identification or lack of identification of a first or second facial anomaly), using RTI, to produce a second three-dimensional representation of the event processing request (fig. 5-7 & par [0038-0040], which disclose generating first and second images corresponding to the detected facial anomalies).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Riley et al within the disclosure of Yerli because incorporating the feature of analyzing user-related data for anomalous data (as disclosed in par [0003] of Riley et al), would allow the disclosure of Yerli to improve user authentication by only authenticating users that provide facial recognition without any detected anomalies would allow Riley et al to prevent user’s with malicious intent to be authenticated if their provided facial graphical images don’t match the correct graphical representation of the user.
With respect to claim 12, Yerli and Riley et al teach the limitations of claim 11.
Yerli further teaches wherein the event processing request comprises a request to process a transaction (par [0063], lines 1-6).
Regarding claim 13, Yerli teaches wherein generating the first three-dimensional representation comprises: generating an initial three-dimensional representation of the event processing request (fig. 1, ‘120, “user graphical representation”).
Yerli does not explicitly teach modifying, using RTI, the initial three-dimensional representation to include one or more unique surface phenomena signatures.
However, Riley et al teaches modifying, using RTI, the initial three-dimensional representation to include one or more unique surface phenomena signatures (fig. 10 & par [0110], “example surface signatures”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Riley et al within the disclosure of Yerli according to the motivation disclosed regarding claim 11.
Regarding claim 14, Yerli does not explicitly teach modifying, using RTI, the initial three-dimensional representation to include one or more unique surface phenomena signatures.
However, Riley et al teaches modifying, using RTI, the initial three-dimensional representation to include one or more unique surface phenomena signatures (fig. 10, “signature 2.0 S.D.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Riley et al within the disclosure of Yerli according to the motivation disclosed regarding claim 11.
Regarding claim 15, Yerli does not explicitly teach wherein the one or more unique surface phenomena signatures comprise adjustments of shading in the initial three-dimensional representation.
However, Riley et al teaches wherein the one or more unique surface phenomena signatures comprise adjustments of shading in the initial three-dimensional representation (fig. 10, par [0108], lines 2-10, & par [0110], lines 1-10).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Riley et al within the disclosure of Yerli according to the motivation disclosed regarding claim 11.
Regarding claim 16, Yerli does not explicitly teach wherein the memory stores additional computer-readable instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the computing platform to: generate, after generating the first three-dimensional representation, a unique surface template designed to fit into the first three-dimensional representation to generate the complete three-dimensional representation, wherein the RTI transformation information is defined by the unique surface template.
However, Riley et al teaches wherein the memory stores additional computer-readable instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the computing platform to:
generate, after generating the first three-dimensional representation, a unique surface template designed to fit into the first three-dimensional representation to generate the complete three-dimensional representation (fig. 10 & par [0110], “surface signatures”), wherein the RTI transformation information is defined by the unique surface template (fig. 10 & par [0110], “surface comparison”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Riley et al within the disclosure of Yerli because incorporating the feature of analyzing user-related data for anomalous data (as disclosed in par [0003] of Riley et al), would allow the disclosure of Yerli to improve user authentication by only authenticating users that provide facial recognition without any detected anomalies would allow Riley et al to prevent user’s with malicious intent to be authenticated if their provided facial graphical images don’t match the correct graphical representation of the user.
With respect to claim 17, Yerli and Riley et al teach the limitations of claim 11.
Yerli further teaches wherein the memory stores additional computer-readable instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the computing platform to:
based on identifying that the three-dimensional representation is validated, enable viewing, by the recipient user device, of details corresponding to the event processing request (par [0070-0071] and par [0278], “authenticated through the user graphical representation”).
With respect to claim 20, Yerli teaches one or more non-transitory computer-readable media storing instructions that, when executed by a computing platform comprising at least one processor (fig. 1, ‘104), a communication interface (fig. 1 & par [0014], “user interface”); and memory (fig. 1, ‘106), cause the computing platform to:
receive, from an initiating user device, an event processing request (par [0063], lines 1-5, “client device requesting access”);
generate, using reflectance transformation imaging (RTI) (par [0071], lines 18-22, “reflectance parameters”), a first three-dimensional representation of the event processing request (par [0071], lines 20-31, “3D authentication”);
wherein a combination of the first three-dimensional representation and the second three-dimensional representation produces a complete three-dimensional representation of the event processing request (par [0008], lines 8-16 and par [0010], lines 16-20, which disclose graphically combining user graphical 3D representations), and wherein the second three-dimensional representation is produced via communication between the recipient user device and the computing platform without transmitting any three-dimensional representation to the recipient user device (fig. 6A, ‘612, “insertion into and combination with virtual environment”);
generate, using the first three-dimensional representation and the second three-dimensional representation, the complete three-dimensional representation (fig. 6B, ‘610 “image processing combination 2…image processing combination 3…”);
identify whether the complete three-dimensional representation is validated (par [0071], lines 1-20, which discloses determining if the captured 3D representation data from the user is authenticated); and
based on identifying that the complete three-dimensional representation is validated, process the event processing request (par [0072], lines 1-20 which discloses authenticating the user’s access request upon authentication of the provided 3D user graphical representation).
Yerli does not explicitly teach sending, to a recipient user device, RTI transformation information indicating transformation actions to be performed, using RTI, to produce a second three-dimensional representation of the event processing request.
However, Riley et al teaches sending, to a recipient user device, RTI transformation information indicating transformation actions to be performed (par [0074], which discloses presenting data corresponding to an identification or lack of identification of a first or second facial anomaly), using RTI, to produce a second three-dimensional representation of the event processing request (fig. 5-7 & par [0038-0040], which disclose generating first and second images corresponding to the detected facial anomalies).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Riley et al within the disclosure of Yerli because incorporating the feature of analyzing user-related data for anomalous data (as disclosed in par [0003] of Riley et al), would allow the disclosure of Yerli to improve user authentication by only authenticating users that provide facial recognition without any detected anomalies would allow Riley et al to prevent user’s with malicious intent to be authenticated if their provided facial graphical images don’t match the correct graphical representation of the user.
5. Claims 8-9 and 18-19 are rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Yerli (US 2022/0070236) in view of Riley et al (US 2022/0183616), further in view of Tint et al (WO 2023/154393 A1).
Regarding claim 8, Yerli and Riley et al do not explicitly teach wherein the memory stores additional computer-readable instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the computing platform to: based on identifying that the three-dimensional representation is not validated: increment a failure count corresponding to the event processing request; compare the failure count to a predefined failure threshold; based on identifying that the failure count meets or exceeds the predefined failure threshold, deny fulfillment of the event processing request on behalf of the recipient user device; and based on identifying that the failure count does not meet or exceed the predefined failure threshold, prompt the recipient user device to produce an updated three-dimensional representation.
However, Tint et al teaches wherein the memory stores additional computer-readable instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the computing platform to:
based on identifying that the three-dimensional representation is not validated (par [0084], lines 9-10):
increment a failure count corresponding to the event processing request (par [0089], lines 5-7, “update the record of the failure count”);
compare the failure count to a predefined failure threshold (par [0089], lines 5-7, “failure is above a threshold”);
based on identifying that the failure count meets or exceeds the predefined failure threshold, deny fulfillment of the event processing request on behalf of the recipient user device (par [0089], which discloses facial recognition failing if the facial recognition amount is above a threshold); and
based on identifying that the failure count does not meet or exceed the predefined failure threshold, prompt the recipient user device to produce an updated three-dimensional representation (par [0084], lines 10-13, which discloses prompting a user to retake a facial image upon the previously provided image not being valid).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Tint et al with the teachings of Yerli and Riley et al in order to improve efficiency and accuracy in a request authentication environment (as disclosed in par [0003] of Tint et al) by implementing an image authentication threshold, which prevents excess fraudulent image authentication by eliminating the opportunity for unauthorized access from unauthenticated entities submitting image-based authentication requests.
Regarding claim 9, Yerli and Riley et al do not explicitly teach wherein producing the second three-dimensional representation via communication between the recipient user device and the computing platform without transmitting any three-dimensional representation to the recipient user device comprises: granting the recipient user device access to view an obscured representation of the event processing request; receiving RTI instructions from the recipient user device based on the RTI transformation information; and producing the second three-dimensional representation based on the RTI instructions.
However, Tint et al teaches wherein producing the second three-dimensional representation via communication between the recipient user device and the computing platform without transmitting any three-dimensional representation to the recipient user device comprises:
granting the recipient user device access to view an obscured representation of the event processing request (par [0084], lines 11-13, “poor quality”);
receiving RTI instructions from the recipient user device based on the RTI transformation information (par [0037], lines 1-4); and
producing the second three-dimensional representation based on the RTI instructions (Abstract, “second facial data”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Tint et al with the teachings of Yerli and Riley et al according to the motivation disclosed regarding claim 8.
Regarding claim 18, Yerli and Riley et al do not explicitly teach based on identifying that the three-dimensional representation is not validated: increment a failure count corresponding to the event processing request; compare the failure count to a predefined failure threshold; based on identifying that the failure count meets or exceeds the predefined failure threshold, deny fulfillment of the event processing request on behalf of the recipient user device; and based on identifying that the failure count does not meet or exceed the predefined failure threshold, prompt the recipient user device to produce an updated three-dimensional representation.
However, Tint et al teaches based on identifying that the three-dimensional representation is not validated (par [0084], lines 9-10):
increment a failure count corresponding to the event processing request (par [0089], lines 5-7, “update the record of the failure count”);
compare the failure count to a predefined failure threshold (par [0089], lines 5-7, “failure is above a threshold”);
based on identifying that the failure count meets or exceeds the predefined failure threshold, deny fulfillment of the event processing request on behalf of the recipient user device (par [0089], which discloses facial recognition failing if the facial recognition amount is above a threshold); and
based on identifying that the failure count does not meet or exceed the predefined failure threshold, prompt the recipient user device to produce an updated three-dimensional representation (par [0084], lines 10-13, which discloses prompting a user to retake a facial image upon the previously provided image not being valid).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Tint et al with the teachings of Yerli and Riley et al in order to improve efficiency and accuracy in a request authentication environment (as disclosed in par [0003] of Tint et al) by implementing an image authentication threshold, which prevents excess fraudulent image authentication by eliminating the opportunity for unauthorized access from unauthenticated entities submitting image-based authentication requests.
Regarding claim 19, Yerli and Riley et al do not explicitly teach wherein producing the second three-dimensional representation via communication between the recipient user device and the computing platform without transmitting any three-dimensional representation to the recipient user device comprises: granting the recipient user device access to view an obscured representation of the event processing request; receiving RTI instructions from the recipient user device based on the RTI transformation information; and producing the second three-dimensional representation based on the RTI instructions.
However, Tint et al teaches wherein producing the second three-dimensional representation via communication between the recipient user device and the computing platform without transmitting any three-dimensional representation to the recipient user device comprises:
granting the recipient user device access to view an obscured representation of the event processing request (par [0084], lines 11-13, “poor quality”);
receiving RTI instructions from the recipient user device based on the RTI transformation information (par [0037], lines 1-4); and
producing the second three-dimensional representation based on the RTI instructions (Abstract, “second facial data”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Tint et al with the teachings of Yerli and Riley et al according to the motivation disclosed regarding claim 18.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Randy A. Scott whose telephone number is (571) 272-3797. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday 7:30 am-5:00 pm, second Fridays 7:30 am-4pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Luu Pham can be reached on (571) 270-5002. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/RANDY A SCOTT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2439 20260108