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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claim 1 recites the limitation generating, using the one or more processors, a set of descriptors based on a plurality of sub-segments, wherein the set of descriptors includes a first descriptor derived from the first sub-segment and a second descriptor. This limitation would at least put the reader in doubt because it is unclear how the first descriptor is derived from the first sub-segment and a second descriptor, and what the relationship is between the first sub-segment and the second descriptor is prior to deriving the first descriptor. A similar limitation also occurs in claim 11. Please clarify.
Since claims 2-10 and 12-20 depend on claims 1 and 11 respectively, they are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, for the same reason set forth above for claims 1 and 11.
Notice re prior art available under both pre-AIA and AIA
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.
Examiner's Note
Examiner has cited particular columns and line numbers or figures in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant, in preparing the responses, to fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
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 1-5, 7-8, 11-15, and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marshalkin (US 2025/0218226 A1).
With regard to claim 1, as best understood, Marshalkin discloses A computer-implemented method comprising: receiving, using one or more processors, first image data, the first image data representing a subject, i.e., face of user being verified, and a scene, i.e., background; segmenting, using the one or more processors, the first image data into a first segment, i.e., user’s face, associated with the subject and a second segment associated with the scene, i.e., background, (See for example, paragraphs 0029, 0034-00038) ; sub-segmenting, using the one or more processors, one or more of the first segment and the second segment into a plurality of sub-segments, the plurality of sub-segments including a first sub-segment, i.e., visual features associated with the face, and a second sub-segment, i.e., visual features associated with the background; generating, using the one or more processors, a set of descriptors based on a plurality of sub-segments, wherein the set of descriptors includes a first descriptor derived from the first sub-segment and a second descriptor (See for example, paragraphs 0038-0048; and Figs. 1-4 and the associated text ); obtaining, using the one or more processors, a composite search result set based on the first descriptor and the second descriptor, wherein the composite search result set includes descriptors associated with other images that are determined to be most similar to the first descriptor and the second descriptor (See for example, paragraph 0060-0063); and determining, using the one or more processors and a first machine learning model, whether the first image data is likely fraudulent, i.e., anomalous, based on the composite search result set (See for example, paragraphs 0066-0070; and Figs. 1-4 and the associated text). While the system Marshalkin does not expressly call for segmenting, using the one or more processors, the first image data into a first segment associated with the subject and a second segment associated with the scene, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious if not inherent, that the image data (10) of Marshalkin does contain a face of a person, i.e., subject, and a background, i.e., scene, in order to detect anomalies in identity verification (See for example, Figs. 1-4 and the associated text).
With regard to claim 2, the computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the first sub-segment and second sub-segment are associated with the same segment (implicit: body and clothing, See for example, paragraph 0046).
With regard to claim 3, the computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the first sub-segment and second sub-segment are associated with different segments (first sub-segment: clothing, body and second sub-segment: document number, firs name, last name, date of birth among others: See for example, paragraphs 0046 and 0103).
With regard to claim 4. The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the subject is one or more of a person and a document (See for example, Fig. 3 or 4 and the associated text).
With regard to claim 5, the computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the first sub-segment is associated with the subject, and wherein the first sub-segment represents a portion of a person in the first image data, and wherein the first sub-segment represents one or more of the person's head, the person's hair, the person's neck, the person's torso, the person's clothes, and the person's hand (implicit: See for example, paragraph 0046).
With regard to claim 7, the computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the second sub-segment represents an object detected associated with the second segment (See for example, paragraphs 0103 and 0107).
With regard to claim 8, the computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the second descriptor includes a textual description of one or more of the first segment, the second segment, and a second sub-segment (See for example, (See for example, paragraphs 0031 and 0103: first, last or full name).
Claim 11 is rejected the same as claim 1 except claim 11 is an apparatus claim. Thus, argument similar to that presented above for claim 1 is applicable to claim 11. With respect to one or more processors; and a memory operably coupled with the one or more processors, wherein the memory stores instructions, applicant’s attention is invited to Figure 5 and the associated text.
Claims 12, 13, 14, 15, 17, and 18 are rejected the same as claims 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, and 8 respectively, except claims 12, 13, 14, 15, 17, and 18 are apparatus claims. Thus, arguments analogous to those presented above for claims 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, and 8 are respectively applicable to claims 12, 13, 14, 15, 17, and 18.
Claims 9 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marshalkin ‘226 in view of Swaminathan, et al. (US 2021/0272341 A1)
With regard to claim 9, Marshalkin disclose all of the claimed subject matter as already discussed above in paragraph 8, and incorporated herein by reference. While Marshalkin discloses a clothing item, Marshalkin does not expressly call for wherein the second descriptor includes a textual description of at least a portion of the subject, where the subject represents a person, the textual description including a text-based description of the person's clothing. However, Swaminathan, et al. (See for example, paragraph 0003) teach this feature. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to incorporate the teaching as taught by Swaminathan, et al. into the system of Marshalkin, if for no other reason than to provide text description of the person’s/ user’s clothing. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Marshalkin with Swaminathan, et al. to obtain the invention as specified in claim 9.
Claim 19 is rejected the same as claim9 except claim 19 is an apparatus claim. Thus, argument analogous to that presented above for claim 9 is applicable to claim 19.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US Patent Application Publication Numbers: 2023/0401824 (See for example, Figs. 3 and 4); and 2016/0005050 (See for example, Figs. 1-4 and the associated text).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL G MARIAM whose telephone number is (571)272-7394. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-5:00 EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, ANDREW MOYER can be reached at (571)272-9523. 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.
/DANIEL G MARIAM/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2675
Prosecution Insights