1875018750DETAILED 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 .
This written action is responding to the amendment dated on 01/13/2026.
Claims 1, 8 and 13 have been amended, Claim 20 newly added and all other Claims are previously presented.
Claims 1-20 are submitted for examination.
Claims 1-20 are pending.
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Priority
This application filed on June 21, 2024 claims priority of Parent application 18/204,785 filed on June 01, 2023, which claims priority of Parent application 17/580,334 filed on January 20, 2022, which claims priority of Parent application 16/787,581 filed on February 11, 2020, which claims priority of Parent application 16/403,532 filed on May 04, 2019 which claims Priority of PCT/US2018/056225, filed on October 17, 2018 which claims Priority of a Provisional application filed on October 08, 2018.
Information Disclosure Statement
The following Information Disclosure Statements in the instant application submitted in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97, and thus, have been fully considered:
IDS filed on 21 June 2024.
IDS filed on 17 October 2024.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendment, filed on January 13, 2026 has claims 1, 8 and 13 amended, claim 20 newly added and all other claims previously presented. Among the amended claims, claims 1, 8 and 13 are independent ones, and thus, the amendment necessitates a new ground of rejection.
The prior rejection of double patenting have been withdrawn in view of the filed and approved terminal disclaimer on January 13, 2026.
Applicant’s remark, filed on January 13, 2026 on bottom of page 11 and top of page 12 regarding, “The Applicant's attorney submits that the Office Action's 103 rejections fails to render obvious various features of the independent claims. For example, the Office Action initially alleges paragraphs [0087] and [0088] of Tussy disclose "causing, based on at least the one or more additional images, the biometric data to be created'. While relied on paragraphs [0087] and [0088] of Tussy describe "determin[ing] biometric information ... for the user", the Applicant's attorney notes that Tussy's "biometric information" is determined based on "enrollment images" described in paragraph [0086] of Tussy which the Office Action equates to the claimed "plurality of images" in rejecting "capturing, at a client device, a plurality of images of a user generated using a vision sensor of a client device of the user", which are distinct from the "the one or more additional images" has been considered, however is not found persuasive. The rejection is based on a combination of Tussy in view of Derakhshani. Derakhshani teaches, “the authentication application 550 determines quality scores for captured images and continues rejecting the images based on low quality scores and providing feedback to the user (e.g., through a display or a speaker) to prompt the user to collect additional images until one or more images of sufficient quality are obtained”. (CL(9), LN(19-25)). Tussy teaches, “the device may begin obtaining the enrollment images of the user. In one embodiment, the user may press a button on the device 112 such as on a touchscreen or other button on the device to initiate the obtaining of the enrollment images. The user then moves the mobile device to different positions relative to his or her head as the device images the user's face from a plurality of angles or positions as described above. When the above-mentioned front-facing camera is used, the user may continually confirm that his or her face is being imaged by viewing the imaging on the display screen. The user may again press the button to indicate that the imaging is completed. Alternatively the user may hold the button during imaging, and then release the button to indicate that imaging is complete”. (¶86).Thus a person having an ordinary skill in the art would combine Tussay and Derakhshani to capture additional images to create biometric authentication data when system rejected low quality images to create biometric authentication data. The motivation/suggestion for doing so would be to provide security by reliably authenticating individuals by gathering of superior image data during authentication sessions.
Applicant’s remark, filed on January 13, 2026 on middle of page 12 regarding, “the Office Action relies on FIG. 6, col. 11, lines 19-21, and col. 10, lines 5-32 of Derakhsani as allegedly disclosing "capturing one or more additional images of the user generated using the vision sensor of the client device". While the relied upon aspects of Derakhsani disclose that "the user can be prompted to resubmit one or more new images", the Applicant's attorney notes that the "one or more new images" are used in "authenticating an individual" as part of the "process 600" in relied upon FIG. 6 and not for use in "causing... the biometric data to be created" as set forth in the independent claims”, has been considered, however is not found persuasive. Derakhsani teaches, “the authentication application 550 transmits captured image data to an authentication module (e.g., authentication modules 525 or 540) on a remote server (e.g., server systems 512 or 514) through the network 511. The collection of image data from user can facilitate enrollment and the creation of a reference record for the user. The collection of image data from user can also facilitate authentication against a reference record for a user identity. the authentication application 550 determines quality scores for captured images and continues rejecting the images based on low quality scores and providing feedback to the user (e.g., through a display or a speaker) to prompt the user to collect additional images until one or more images of sufficient quality are obtained. At that point image data, based on the accepted images, can be transmitted to a server side authentication module (e.g., authentication modules 525 or 540) for further analysis”. (CL(9), LN(4-28)). Derakhsani further discloses, “The quality score is checked 606 to determine whether the quality of the one or more images is sufficient. In some implementations, the quality score can be compared to a threshold. If the quality score is insufficient, the one or more images are rejected 608. In some implementations, the user can then be provided 610 with feedback that indicates that there was problem with the obtained images. The feedback can also give an indication as to the likely nature of the problem and thus facilitate an improved image capture from the user. For example, the feedback can indicate that the image is out of focus, or the lighting was poor. In some implementations, feedback is provided 610 through a display, speaker, or haptic feedback device. In some implementations, feedback is provided 610 by transmitting one or messages over a network using a network interface. The number of attempts to obtain images can be checked 612 and, if too many (e.g., more than 3) attempts have been made, the user can be rejected 630. Otherwise, the user can be prompted to resubmit one or more new images as part of new attempt to obtain 602 one or more images”. (CL(11), LN(1-11)). “ When a user has been accepted 632, it can be presumed that the user corresponds to the reference record. In some cases, the one or more obtained images or portions of those images used authenticate the user can have a superior quality level compared to a reference image, or portion thereof, from which the data in the reference record is derived. The reference record can include one or more quality scores for the one or more reference images from which the data in the reference record is derived. A quality score for the one or more obtained images can be compared 634 to a quality score from the reference record. If a new obtained image has a better quality score, then the reference record or a portion of the reference record can be updated 636 based on the new obtained image. For example, features extracted from the new obtained image or a portion of the new obtained image can be saved in the reference record to supplement or replace features that were previously saved in the reference record. In some implementations, the reference record is updated 636 by an authentication module (e.g., authentication module 440 running on computing device 430)”. (CL(14), LN(35-54)). Thus Derakhsani teaches that when one of the captured additional images have better quality, the system updates reference biometric authentication data. Hence a new biometric authentication data is created. Also Derakhsani clearly teaches, collection of image data from user can facilitate enrollment and the creation of a reference record for the user. A person having an ordinary skill in the art would interpret a reference record as an enrollment record which is a biometric data.
Applicant’s remark, filed on January 13, 2026 on bottom of page 12 regarding, “The Office Action alleges that the proposed combination of Tussy and Derakhsani "would have been obvious to have identifying a suitable image ... to verify a user of Derakhsani with capturing ... images and generating a biometric template to authenticate a user of Tussy". Office Action, p. 10. However, the Applicant's attorney submits that such rationale is based on impermissible hindsight bias since Derakhsani's "prompt[] to resubmit one or more new images" is received while "verify[ing] a user" and not while "generating a biometric template" as described in the relied upon aspects of Tussy”, has been considered however is not found persuasive. Derakshani discloses, “the authentication application 550 transmits captured image data to an authentication module (e.g., authentication modules 525 or 540) on a remote server (e.g., server systems 512 or 514) through the network 511. The collection of image data from user can facilitate enrollment and the creation of a reference record for the user. The collection of image data from user can also facilitate authentication against a reference record for a user identity. the authentication application 550 determines quality scores for captured images and continues rejecting the images based on low quality scores and providing feedback to the user (e.g., through a display or a speaker) to prompt the user to collect additional images until one or more images of sufficient quality are obtained. At that point image data, based on the accepted images, can be transmitted to a server side authentication module (e.g., authentication modules 525 or 540) for further analysis”. (CL(9), LN(4-28)). Derakhsani further discloses, “The quality score is checked 606 to determine whether the quality of the one or more images is sufficient. In some implementations, the quality score can be compared to a threshold. If the quality score is insufficient, the one or more images are rejected 608. In some implementations, the user can then be provided 610 with feedback that indicates that there was problem with the obtained images. The feedback can also give an indication as to the likely nature of the problem and thus facilitate an improved image capture from the user. For example, the feedback can indicate that the image is out of focus, or the lighting was poor. In some implementations, feedback is provided 610 through a display, speaker, or haptic feedback device. In some implementations, feedback is provided 610 by transmitting one or messages over a network using a network interface. The number of attempts to obtain images can be checked 612 and, if too many (e.g., more than 3) attempts have been made, the user can be rejected 630. Otherwise, the user can be prompted to resubmit one or more new images as part of new attempt to obtain 602 one or more images”. (CL(11), LN(1-11)). “ When a user has been accepted 632, it can be presumed that the user corresponds to the reference record. In some cases, the one or more obtained images or portions of those images used authenticate the user can have a superior quality level compared to a reference image, or portion thereof, from which the data in the reference record is derived. The reference record can include one or more quality scores for the one or more reference images from which the data in the reference record is derived. A quality score for the one or more obtained images can be compared 634 to a quality score from the reference record. If a new obtained image has a better quality score, then the reference record or a portion of the reference record can be updated 636 based on the new obtained image. For example, features extracted from the new obtained image or a portion of the new obtained image can be saved in the reference record to supplement or replace features that were previously saved in the reference record. In some implementations, the reference record is updated 636 by an authentication module (e.g., authentication module 440 running on computing device 430)”. (CL(14), LN(35-54)). Thus Derakhsani not only teaches, utilizing images for authentication, the resubmitted images are also utilized for reference data which is a biometric template. Tussy teaches, “the device may begin obtaining the enrollment images of the user. In one embodiment, the user may press a button on the device 112 such as on a touchscreen or other button on the device to initiate the obtaining of the enrollment images. The user then moves the mobile device to different positions relative to his or her head as the device images the user's face from a plurality of angles or positions as described above. When the above-mentioned front-facing camera is used, the user may continually confirm that his or her face is being imaged by viewing the imaging on the display screen. The user may again press the button to indicate that the imaging is completed. Alternatively the user may hold the button during imaging, and then release the button to indicate that imaging is complete”. (¶86). Thus a person having an ordinary skill in the art would have combined teachings of Derakhsani with the invention of Tussay where a submitted images is checked for quality and the prompted the user to resubmit images to create a biometric template. The motivation/suggestion for doing so would be to provide security by reliably authenticating individuals by gathering of superior image data during authentication sessions.
Applicant further recites similar remarks as listed above for dependent claims. Please see response for remarks in above paragraphs 11-13 that clearly shows how the cited prior arts Tussy, Derakhsani and Jaiswal clearly teaches the claimed limitations.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kevin Alan Tussy (US PGPUB. # US 2018/0218139, hereinafter “Tussy”), and further in view of Derakhshani et al. (US PAT. # US 8,483,450, hereinafter “Derakhshani”), and further in view of Jaiswal Sharag (WIPO PUB. # WO 2013/107582, hereinafter “Jaiswal”).
Referring to Claims 1, 8 and 13:
Regarding Claim 1, Tussy teaches,
A method implemented by one or more processors, the method comprising:
capturing, at a client device, a plurality of images of a user to create biometric data for subsequently authenticating the user to a computing resource, the plurality of images being generated using a vision sensor of a client device of the user; (Fig. 1, ¶43, ¶46-¶47, “authentication information of users 108 to identify the users 108 to allow access to associated user data based on one or more images or biometric information received from the mobile device 112”, Fig. 4, ¶92, ¶95, Fig. 5(510, 520), ¶83, Fig. 6A, Fig. 6B, Fig. 7A, Fig. 7B, ¶86, “The enrollment images of the user's face are taken as the user holds the mobile device and moves the mobile device to different positions relative to his or her head and face. Thus, the enrollment images of the user's face are taken from many different angles or positions”, ¶84-¶86, i.e. plurality of images of a person are captured using a camera (vision sensor) for enrollment and subsequently for an authentication to access computing resource);
transmitting, from the client device and to a remote computing device over one or more networks, the plurality of images; (¶49, ¶87, “the mobile device may detect the user's face in each of the enrollment images, crop the images to include only the user's face, and send, via a network, the images to the authentication server 120.”, i.e. images are transmitted to an authentication server (remote computing device));
[in response to receiving the additional message]:
causing, based on at least the one or more additional images, the biometric data to be created; (¶87, “the authentication server 120 performs facial recognition on the images to determine biometric information ("enrollment biometrics") for the user. The authentication server 120 may then associate the enrollment biometrics with the device information and the unique identifier (or account information) and stores the biometric information in the database 124 in step 528”, ¶88, “the mobile device 112 may perform each of the above mentioned steps, and the mobile device 112 may store the enrollment information without sending any of the enrollment biometrics or images to the server”, i.e. Examiner submits that biometric information is generated based on the images in a mobile device); and
causing the user to be enrolled with the computing resource based on the biometric data. (Fig. 4(410), Fig. 5, ¶88, “the mobile device 112 may perform each of the above mentioned steps, and the mobile device 112 may store the enrollment information without sending any of the enrollment biometrics or images to the server”, i.e. user is enrolled based on the biometric data).
Tussy does not teach explicitly,
receiving, at the client device and from the remote computing device over one or more of the networks, a message that indicates one or more images, from among the plurality of images, is not suitable to create the biometric data for subsequently authenticating the user to the computing resource;
wherein the message includes one or more instructions to reduce or eliminate noise from the one or more images, from among the plurality of images, not suitable to create the biometric data for subsequently authenticating the user to the computing resource;
capturing one or more additional images of the user to create the biometric data for subsequently authenticating the user to the computing resource, the one or more additional images being generated using the vision sensor of the client device;
transmitting, from the client device and to the remote computing device over one or more of the networks, the one or more additional images;
receiving, at the client device and from the remote computing device over one or more of the networks, an additional message that indicates at least the one or more additional images are suitable to create the biometric data for subsequently authenticating the user to the computing resource,
wherein the additional message is generated based on the noise being reduced or eliminated from the one or more additional images suitable to create the biometric data for subsequently authenticating the user to the computing resource; and
in response to receiving the additional message;
However, Derakhshani teaches,
receiving, at the client device and from the remote computing device over one or more of the networks, a message that indicates one or more images, from among the plurality of images, is not suitable to create the biometric data [for subsequently authenticating the user to the computing resource]; (Fig. 5, CL(8), LN(40-45), “When an image is rejected for being of low quality, the authentication module 540 can send network communication messages to provide a user with feedback to assist them in resubmitting a new image”, Fig. 6(606, 608, 610), CL(11), LN(1-15), “the user can then be provided 610 with feedback that indicates that there was problem with the obtained images. The feedback can also give an indication as to the likely nature of the problem and thus facilitate an improved image capture from the user”, i.e. a message is received at a user device that indicates one or more image is not suitable to create biometric data),
wherein the message includes one or more instructions to reduce or eliminate noise from the one or more images, from among the plurality of images, not suitable to create the biometric data [for subsequently authenticating the user to the computing resource]; (Fig. 6, CL(11), LN(11-16), “the feedback can indicate that the image is out of focus, or the lighting was poor. In some implementations, feedback is provided 610 through a display, speaker, or haptic feedback device. In some implementations, feedback is provided 610 by transmitting one or messages over a network using a network interface”),
capturing one or more additional images of the user to create the biometric data [for subsequently authenticating the user to the computing resource], the one or more additional images being generated using the vision sensor of the client device; (Fig. 6(602), CL(11), LN(19-21), “the user can be prompted to resubmit one or more new images as part of new attempt to obtain 602 one or more images”, CL(10), LN(5-32), i.e. one or more additional images are captured)
transmitting, from the client device and to the remote computing device over one or more of the networks, the one or more additional images; (CL(9), LN(4-11), “the authentication application 550 transmits captured image data to an authentication module (e.g., authentication modules 525 or 540) on a remote server (e.g., server systems 512 or 514) through the network 511”)
receiving, at the client device and from the remote computing device over one or more of the networks, an additional message that indicates at least the one or more additional images are suitable to create the biometric data [for subsequently authenticating the user to the computing resource]; (CL(9), LN(4-8), “the authentication application 550 transmits captured image data to an authentication module (e.g., authentication modules 525 or 540) on a remote server (e.g., server systems 512 or 514) through the network 511”, CL(9), LN(20-28), “continues rejecting the images based on low quality scores and providing feedback to the user (e.g., through a display or a speaker) to prompt the user to collect additional images until one or more images of sufficient quality are obtained. At that point image data, based on the accepted images, can be transmitted to a server side authentication module (e.g., authentication modules 525 or 540) for further analysis”, CL(9), LN(11-26), i.e. images are rejected and messages are communicated to the user and when image is accepted it is obvious that user (client device) receives a message from the remote server that the image is suitable and accepted) and
in response to receiving the additional message; (CL(9), LN(4-8), “the authentication application 550 transmits captured image data to an authentication module (e.g., authentication modules 525 or 540) on a remote server (e.g., server systems 512 or 514) through the network 511”, CL(9), LN(20-28), “continues rejecting the images based on low quality scores and providing feedback to the user (e.g., through a display or a speaker) to prompt the user to collect additional images until one or more images of sufficient quality are obtained. At that point image data, based on the accepted images, can be transmitted to a server side authentication module (e.g., authentication modules 525 or 540) for further analysis”, CL(9), LN(11-26), i.e. images are rejected and messages are communicated to the user and when image is accepted it is obvious that user (client device) receives a message from the remote server that the image is suitable and accepted (additional message is received)).
As per KSR vs Teleflex, combining prior art elements according to known methods (device, product) to yield predictable results may be used to create a prima facie case of obviousness.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have combined the teachings of Derakhshani with the invention of Tussy.
Tussy, teaches capturing plurality of images and generating a biometric template to authenticate a user. Derakhshani teaches, identifying a suitable image from the plurality of images based on the quality of the image to verify a user. Therefore, it would have been obvious to have identifying a suitable image from the plurality of images based on the quality of the image to verify a user of Derakhshani with capturing plurality of images and generating a biometric template to authenticate a user of Tussy in order to provide security by reliably authenticating individuals by gathering of superior image data during authentication sessions.
KSR Int’l v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727, 1740-41, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007).
Combination of Tussy and Derakhshani does not teach explicitly,
[receiving, at the client device and from the remote computing device over one or more of the networks, a message that indicates one or more images, from among the plurality of images, is not suitable to create the biometric data] for subsequently authenticating the user to the computing resource;
[wherein the message includes one or more instructions to reduce or eliminate noise from the one or more images, from among the plurality of images, not suitable to create the biometric data] for subsequently authenticating the user to the computing resource;
[capturing one or more additional images of the user to create the biometric data] for subsequently authenticating the user to the computing resource, [the one or more additional images being generated using the vision sensor of the client device];
[receiving, at the client device and from the remote computing device over one or more of the networks, an additional message that indicates at least the one or more additional images are suitable to create the biometric data] for subsequently authenticating the user to the computing resource;
wherein the additional message is generated based on the noise being reduced or eliminated from the one or more additional images suitable to create the biometric data for subsequently authenticating the user to the computing resource; and
However, Jaiswal teaches,
[receiving, at the client device and from the remote computing device over one or more of the networks, a message that indicates one or more images, from among the plurality of images, is not suitable to create the biometric data] for subsequently authenticating the user to the computing resource; (¶25, “a text message suggesting the user to capture the biometric image data from a different angle”, “The above referred procedure may be repeated till biometric image data of high acceptability index is received and provided to the authorization server for authentication”, ¶47, “The system 102 is configured to validate and transmit the biometric image data of the user to the authentication server 104 for authorizing the user to access the secure database”)
[wherein the message includes one or more instructions to reduce or eliminate noise from the one or more images, from among the plurality of images, not suitable to create the biometric data] for subsequently authenticating the user to the computing resource; (¶25, “a text message suggesting the user to capture the biometric image data from a different angle”, “The above referred procedure may be repeated till biometric image data of high acceptability index is received and provided to the authorization server for authentication”, ¶47, “The system 102 is configured to validate and transmit the biometric image data of the user to the authentication server 104 for authorizing the user to access the secure database”)
[capturing one or more additional images of the user to create the biometric data] for subsequently authenticating the user to the computing resource, (¶25, “a text message suggesting the user to capture the biometric image data from a different angle”, “The above referred procedure may be repeated till biometric image data of high acceptability index is received and provided to the authorization server for authentication”, ¶47, “The system 102 is configured to validate and transmit the biometric image data of the user to the authentication server 104 for authorizing the user to access the secure database”) [the one or more additional images being generated using the vision sensor of the client device];
[receiving, at the client device and from the remote computing device over one or more of the networks, an additional message that indicates at least the one or more additional images are suitable to create the biometric data] for subsequently authenticating the user to the computing resource; (¶51, “for a relevant segment receiving a high acceptability index, the analysis module 212 may determine the biometric image data as acceptable for authentication and the viewer module 1 10 may provide a go ahead feedback to the user”)
wherein the additional message is generated based on the noise being reduced or eliminated from the one or more additional images suitable to create the biometric data for subsequently authenticating the user to the computing resource; (¶53, “For example, in case the unusable portions are too dark, the viewer module 110 may indicate the user to capture the biometric image data in a properly lit area”, ¶61, “the biometric image data may be transmitted for further processing, such as for authorization to an authorization server, such as the authorization server 104. Further, a feedback may be given, say, in the form of a textual message" data validated, sent for authorization"”, ¶63, “an image captured, based on the feedback, may be provided to an authorization server, for example, the authorization server 104”, i.e. user is notified that the image is acceptable after correcting issue with the image and the image is sent for validation (authentication) ).
As per KSR vs Teleflex, combining prior art elements according to known methods (device, product) to yield predictable results may be used to create a prima facie case of obviousness.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have combined the teachings of Jaiswal with the invention of Tussy in view of Derakhshani.
Tussy, in view of Derakhshani teaches capturing plurality of images and generating a biometric template to authenticate a user while identifying a suitable image from the plurality of images based on the quality of the image to verify a user. Jaiswal teaches, providing a feedback to the user regarding suitable and not suitable images of the captured images for a biometric data to authenticate the user. Therefore, it would have been obvious to provide a feedback to the user regarding suitable and not suitable images of the captured images for a biometric data to authenticate the user of Jaiswal in to the teachings of Tussy in view of Derakhshani in order to enhance user’s experience for providing biometric data and avoiding a possible block of access by repeatedly providing authentication data.
KSR Int’l v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727, 1740-41, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007).
Regarding Claim 8, it is also a method Claim of above method Claim 1 and therefore Claim 8 is rejected with the same rationale as applied against Claim 1 above.
Regarding Claim 13, it is a System Claim of above method Claim 1 and therefore Claim 13 is rejected with the same rationale as applied against Claim 1 above.
Tussy discloses a processor (Fig. 2(208)) and a memory (Fig. 2(210)).
Referring to Claims 2 and 14:
Regarding Claim 2, rejection of Claim 1 is included and for the same motivation Tussy teaches,
The method of claim 1, wherein causing the biometric data to be created based on at least the one or more additional images comprises:
creating, at the client device, the biometric data using at least the one or more additional images. (¶87, “the authentication server 120 performs facial recognition on the images to determine biometric information ("enrollment biometrics") for the user. The authentication server 120 may then associate the enrollment biometrics with the device information and the unique identifier (or account information) and stores the biometric information in the database 124 in step 528”, ¶88, “the mobile device 112 may perform each of the above mentioned steps, and the mobile device 112 may store the enrollment information without sending any of the enrollment biometrics or images to the server”, i.e. Examiner submits that mobile device generates biometric data based on the one or more images captured at the mobile device)
Regarding Claim 14, rejection of Claim 13 is included and Claim 14 is rejected with the same rationale as applied against Claim 2 above.
Referring to Claims 3 and 15:
Regarding Claim 1, rejection of Claim 1 is included and for the same motivation Tussy teaches,
The method of claim 1, wherein causing the biometric data to be created based on at least the one or more additional images comprises:
transmitting, from the client device and to an additional client device over one or more of the networks, at least the one or more additional images, wherein transmitting at least the one or more additional images to the additional client device causes the additional client device to create the biometric data using at least the one or more additional images. (¶87, “crop the images to include only the user's face, and send, via a network, the images to the authentication server, “the authentication server 120 performs facial recognition on the images to determine biometric information (“enrollment biometrics”) for the user”).
Regarding Claim 15, rejection of Claim 13 is included and Claim 15 is rejected with the same rationale as applied against Claim 3 above.
Referring to Claims 4 and 16:
Regarding Claim 4, rejection of Claim 3 is included and for the same motivation Tussy does not teach explicitly,
The method of claim 3, wherein the client device and the additional client device are co-located in a coordinated ecosystem of client devices.
However, Derakhshani teaches,
The method of claim 3, wherein the client device and the additional client device are co-located in a coordinated ecosystem of client devices. (Fig. 4, CL(6), LN(34-61), i.e. client device and the additional client device are co-located).
Regarding Claim 16, rejection of Claim 15 is included and Claim 16 is rejected with the same rationale as applied against Claim 4 above.
Referring to Claims 5 and 17:
Regarding Claim 5, rejection of Claim 1 is included and for the same motivation Tussy teaches,
The method of claim 1, wherein causing the biometric data to be created is further based on one or more further additional images from among the plurality of images that were initially captured at the client device. (¶87, “the authentication server 120 performs facial recognition on the images to determine biometric information ("enrollment biometrics") for the user. The authentication server 120 may then associate the enrollment biometrics with the device information and the unique identifier (or account information) and stores the biometric information in the database 124 in step 528”, ¶88, “the mobile device 112 may perform each of the above mentioned steps, and the mobile device 112 may store the enrollment information without sending any of the enrollment biometrics or images to the server”, i.e. Examiner submits that mobile device generates biometric data based on the one or more images initially captured at the mobile device)
Regarding Claim 17, rejection of Claim 13 is included and Claim 17 is rejected with the same rationale as applied against Claim 5 above.
Referring to Claims 6 and 18:
Regarding Claim 6, rejection of Claim 1 is included and for the same motivation Tussy teaches,
The method of claim 1, wherein the plurality of images are captured for different poses of the user's face, and wherein capturing the plurality of images of the user is based on the client device instructing the user to position the user's face in the different poses. (Fig. 6A, Fig. 6B, Fig. 7A, ¶83, “user is next prompted to provide a plurality of images of his or her face using a camera”, ¶84-¶87).
Regarding Claim 18, rejection of Claim 13 is included and Claim 18 is rejected with the same rationale as applied against Claim 6 above.
Referring to Claims 7 and 19:
Regarding Claim 7, rejection of Claim 6 is included and for the same motivation Tussy teaches,
The method of claim 6, wherein the one or more additional images are captured for a given pose of the user's face, from among the different poses of the user's face, and wherein capturing the one or more additional images of the user is based on the client device instructing the user to position the user's face in the given pose. (Fig. 6A, Fig. 6B, Fig. 7A, ¶83, “user is next prompted to provide a plurality of images of his or her face using a camera”, ¶84-¶87).
Regarding Claim 19, rejection of Claim 18 is included and Claim 19 is rejected with the same rationale as applied against Claim 7 above.
Regarding Claim 9, rejection of Claim 8 is included and for the same motivation Tussy does not teach explicitly,
The method of claim 8, wherein analyzing a given image, from among the plurality of images, to determine whether the given image is suitable to create the biometric data for subsequently authenticating the user to the computing resource comprises:
selecting the given image, from among the plurality of images;
applying, as input across a machine learning model, the given image to generate output; and
determining, based on the output, whether the given image is suitable to create the biometric data for subsequently authenticating the user to the computing resource.
However, Derakhshani teaches,
The method of claim 8, wherein analyzing a given image, from among the plurality of images, to determine whether the given image is suitable to create the biometric data for subsequently authenticating the user to the computing resource comprises:
selecting the given image, from among the plurality of images; (Fig. 6, CL(10), LN(5-32))
applying, as input across a machine learning model, the given image to generate output; (Fig. 6, CL(10), LN(33-59), CL(16), LN(37-54)) and
determining, based on the output, whether the given image is suitable to create the biometric data for subsequently authenticating the user to the computing resource. (Fig. 6, CL(11), LN(1-24)).
Regarding Claim 10, rejection of Claim 9 is included and for the same motivation Tussy does not teach explicitly,
The method of claim 9, further comprising:
subsequent to analyzing the plurality of images:
generating the message that indicates the one or more images is not suitable to create the biometric data for subsequently authenticating the user to the computing resource.
However, Derakhshani teaches,
The method of claim 9, further comprising:
subsequent to analyzing the plurality of images: (Fig. 6, CL(10), LN(33-59))
generating the message that indicates the one or more images is not suitable to create the biometric data for subsequently authenticating the user to the computing resource. (Fig. 5, CL(9), LN(40-45), “When an image is rejected for being of low quality, the authentication module 540 can send network communication messages to provide a user with feedback to assist them in resubmitting a new image”, Fig. 6(606, 608, 610), CL(11), LN(1-15), “the user can then be provided 610 with feedback that indicates that there was problem with the obtained images. The feedback can also give an indication as to the likely nature of the problem and thus facilitate an improved image capture from the user”, i.e. a message is received at a user device that indicates one or more image is not suitable to create biometric data).
Regarding Claim 11, rejection of Claim 9 is included and for the same motivation Tussy does not teach explicitly,
The method of claim 9, wherein the output is indicative of one or more of: a signal-to-noise ratio for the given image, lighting quality for the given image, resolution quality for the given image, or whether the user's face is full captured in a field-of-view of the vision sensor for the given image.
However, Derakhshani teaches,
The method of claim 9, wherein the output is indicative of one or more of: a signal-to-noise ratio for the given image, lighting quality for the given image, resolution quality for the given image, or whether the user's face is full captured in a field-of-view of the vision sensor for the given image. (Fig. 6, CL(11), LN(5-16), “the user can then be provided 610 with feedback that indicates that there was problem with the obtained images. The feedback can also give an indication as to the likely nature of the problem and thus facilitate an improved image capture from the user. For example, the feedback can indicate that the image is out of focus, or the lighting was poor”).
Regarding Claim 12 rejection of Claim 8 is included and for the same motivation combination of Tussy and Derakhshani does not teach explicitly,
The method of claim 8, wherein the message includes a list indicating which of the plurality of images is suitable to create the biometric data for subsequently authenticating the user to the computing resource and which of the plurality of images is not suitable to create the biometric data for subsequently authenticating the user to the computing resource.
However, Jaiswal teaches,
The method of claim 8, wherein the message includes a list indicating which of the plurality of images is suitable to create the biometric data for subsequently authenticating the user to the computing resource and which of the plurality of images is not suitable to create the biometric data for subsequently authenticating the user to the computing resource. (¶22, ¶25-¶26, ¶37, ¶39, Fig. 3, ¶61-¶62).
As per KSR vs Teleflex, combining prior art elements according to known methods (device, product) to yield predictable results may be used to create a prima facie case of obviousness.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have combined the teachings of Jaiswal with the invention of Tussy in view of Derakhshani.
Tussy, in view of Derakhshani teaches capturing plurality of images and generating a biometric template to authenticate a user while identifying a suitable image from the plurality of images based on the quality of the image to verify a user. Jaiswal teaches, providing a feedback to the user regarding suitable and not suitable images of the captured images for a biometric data to authenticate the user. Therefore, it would have been obvious to provide a feedback to the user regarding suitable and not suitable images of the captured images for a biometric data to authenticate the user of Jaiswal in to the teachings of Tussy in view of Derakhshani in order to enhance user’s experience for providing biometric data and avoiding a possible block of access by repeatedly providing authentication data.
KSR Int’l v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727, 1740-41, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007).
Regarding Claim 20, rejection of Claim 1 is included and for the same motivation Tussy does not teach explicitly,
The method of claim 1, wherein the noise included in the one or more images, from among the plurality of images, not suitable to create the biometric data for subsequently authenticating the user to the computing resource comprise is based on one or more of. a signal-to-noise ration for the one or more images, improper lighting for the one or more images, insufficient resolution for the one or more images, a face of the user not being fully captured in the one or more images, or one or more additional users being present in the one or more images.
However, Derakhshani teaches,
The method of claim 1, wherein the noise included in the one or more images, from among the plurality of images, not suitable to create the biometric data [for subsequently authenticating the user to the computing resource comprise] is based on one or more of. a signal-to-noise ratio for the one or more images, improper lighting for the one or more images, insufficient resolution for the one or more images, a face of the user not being fully captured in the one or more images, or one or more additional users being present in the one or more images. (Fig. 6, CL(11), LN(11-16), “the feedback can indicate that the image is out of focus, or the lighting was poor. In some implementations, feedback is provided 610 through a display, speaker, or haptic feedback device. In some implementations, feedback is provided 610 by transmitting one or messages over a network using a network interface”).
Combination of Tussy and Derakhshani does not teach explicitly
The method of claim 1, [wherein the noise included in the one or more images, from among the plurality of images, not suitable to create the biometric data] for subsequently authenticating the user to the computing resource comprise [is based on one or more of. a signal-to-noise ratio for the one or more images, improper lighting for the one or more images, insufficient resolution for the one or more images, a face of the user not being fully captured in the one or more images, or one or more additional users being present in the one or more images].
However, Jaiswal teaches,
The method of claim 1, [wherein the noise included in the one or more images, from among the plurality of images, not suitable to create the biometric data] for subsequently authenticating the user to the computing resource comprise [is based on one or more of. a signal-to-noise ratio for the one or more images, improper lighting for the one or more images, insufficient resolution for the one or more images, a face of the user not being fully captured in the one or more images, or one or more additional users being present in the one or more images]. (¶25, “a text message suggesting the user to capture the biometric image data from a different angle”, “The above referred procedure may be repeated till biometric image data of high acceptability index is received and provided to the authorization server for authentication”, ¶47, “The system 102 is configured to validate and transmit the biometric image data of the user to the authentication server 104 for authorizing the user to access the secure database”).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Refer to PTO-892, Notice of References Cited for a listing of analogous art.
Ganong et al. (US PGPUB. # US 2017/0124385) discloses, methods and systems that authenticate at least one face in at least one digital image using techniques to mitigate spoofing. For example, methods and systems trigger an image capture device to capture a sequence images of the user performing the sequence of one or more position requests based on the pitch and yaw movements. The methods and systems generate a series of face signatures for the sequence of images of the user performing the sequence of one or more position requests. The methods and systems compare the generated series of face signatures to stored face signatures corresponding to the requested sequence of the one or more position requests.
Syrdal et al. (US PAT. # US 8,897,500) discloses, a system configured to practice the method receives a request to verify a speaker, generates a text challenge that is unique to the request, and, in response to the request, prompts the speaker to utter the text challenge. Then the system records a dynamic image feature of the speaker as the speaker utters the text challenge, and performs speaker verification based on the dynamic image feature and the text challenge. Recording the dynamic image feature of the speaker can include recording video of the speaker while speaking the text challenge. The dynamic feature can include a movement pattern of head, lips, mouth, eyes, and/or eyebrows of the speaker. The dynamic image feature can relate to phonetic content of the speaker speaking the challenge, speech prosody, and the speaker's facial expression responding to content of the challenge.
Leblang et al. (US PGPUB. # US 2018/0007060) discloses, one or more policies can be defined for allowing access to one or more services and/or resources associated with a service provider environment according to an authenticated identity. A device, detected by a voice-capturing endpoint within a defined geographical location, may be authenticated according to a unique identification (ID). Voice data received from the voice-capturing endpoint can be authenticated. The authenticated identity can be established according to the authenticated device and the authenticated voice data. A command, received via a voice command from the voice-capturing endpoint, may be issued with the authenticated identity to access the one or more services and/or resources associated with the service provider environment according to the plurality of policies.
Kurian et al. (US PGPUB. # US 2019/0147152) discloses, an authentication system comprises memory operable to store instructions and processing circuitry operable to execute the instructions, whereby the authentication system is operable to receive first user data depicting a facial expression of a first user, authenticate the first user based on the first user data, and restrict the first user from performing an operation in response to determining that the operation requires authenticating at least one other user in addition to authenticating the first user.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DARSHAN I DHRUV whose telephone number is (571)272-4316. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00 AM-5:00 PM.
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, Yin-Chen Shaw can be reached at 571-272-8878. 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.
/DARSHAN I DHRUV/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2498