DETAILED ACTION
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed with respect to claims 1-7 and 9-13 have been fully considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection. The rejections are necessitated due to claim amendments.
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 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over TROESCH et al. (Pub. No. US 2021/0049847) in view of Bazakos et al. (Pub. No. US 2005/01140610).
Regarding claims 1, 14, and 15, TROESCH teaches a method for authenticating a user for access involving at least a first device (camera 16) and a second device (mobile device 6) [Para. 43, 48, fig. 3 and related description] comprising:
a. receiving (detected) an access request [Para. 47, fig. 3, S4 and related description],
b. in response to the access request, recording at least one image (digital) with the first device (camera 16) [Para. 47-48, fig. 3, S5 and related description],
c. generating (generates) a feature vector (dataset with facial features (real-time template)) comprising facial features from the at least one image (digital image) [Para. 48 “generates a real-time template based on the digital image as explained elsewhere in this description”; and para. 28 “generates a dataset with facial features (real-time template) of this user 2 in the course of an image processing and facial recognition process and compares this real-time template with the stored reference templates assigned to the present users 2”],
e. receiving a template (reference template) from the second device (mobile device 6) [Para. 44, fig. 3 and related description],
g. outputting the access signal (result signal) [Para. 31, fig. 3 and related description].
f. generating an access signal (control signal) indicative of whether the user has access based on a comparison of at least one facial feature and the template [Para. 50, 17 and fig. 3 and related description];
However, TROESCH doesn’t explicitly teach d. detecting skin within the at least one images; and f. generating access signal based on said detecting skin within the at least one image.
However, Bazakos teaches detecting skin (isolate the skin) within the at least one images (images) [Para. 48 “Computer 54 first performs a series of operations to isolate the skin in the images” and 14)]; and, generating an access signal (result) indicative of whether the user has access (allow vehicle and /or individuals to enter) based on a comparison (compare) of the feature vector (face print) and the template (stored face print) and based on said detecting skin (isolate the skin) within the at least one image (images) [Para. 40 “However, in a preferred embodiment, the computer 38 retrieves a stored face print which corresponds to the RFID data read by readers 32 and 34 to compare the stored face print with the just-created face print for a one-to-one matching. If a match is declared an "access granted," such as a green light is given to the driver”; and Para. 48].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Troesch’s access-method by incorporating Bazakos’s of detecting skin (isolate the skin) within the at least one image before Troesch’s comparison of the feature vector (real-time template) and template (reference template) used to generate the access signals (result signal). This modification improves Troesch by causing the facial authentication to check that the captured image contains skin before acting on the template match, thereby reducing spoofing risk from masks or fake face parts while preserving fast access-control operation.
Claims 1-3 and 9-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over TROESCH et al. (Pub. No. US 2021/0049847) in view of Hamza et al. (Pub. No. US 2004/0240711).
Regarding claims 1, 14, and 15, TROESCH teaches a method for authenticating a user for access involving at least a first device (camera 16) and a second device (mobile device 6) [Para. 43, 48, fig. 3 and related description] comprising:
a. receiving (detected) an access request [Para. 47, fig. 3, S4 and related description],
b. in response to the access request, recording at least one image (digital) with the first device (camera 16) [Para. 47-48, fig. 3, S5 and related description],
c. generating (generates) a feature vector (dataset with facial features (real-time template)) comprising facial features from the at least one image (digital image) [Para. 48 “generates a real-time template based on the digital image as explained elsewhere in this description”; and para. 28 “generates a dataset with facial features (real-time template) of this user 2 in the course of an image processing and facial recognition process and compares this real-time template with the stored reference templates assigned to the present users 2”],
e. receiving a template (reference template) from the second device (mobile device 6) [Para. 44, fig. 3 and related description],
g. outputting the access signal (result signal) [Para. 31, fig. 3 and related description].
f. generating an access signal (control signal) indicative of whether the user has access based on a comparison of at least one facial feature and the template [Para. 50, 17 and fig. 3 and related description];
However, TROESCH doesn’t explicitly teach d. detecting skin within the at least one images; and f. generating access signal based on said detecting skin within the at least one image.
However, Hamza teaches detecting skin within the at least one images [Para. 34-35]; and, generating an access signal (authenticated and directed to proceed through the access point) indicative of whether the user has access based on a comparison (one to one matching process) of the feature vector (3D face feature vector) and the template (normalized image templates) and based on said detecting skin (skin detection) within the at least one image (images) [Para. 33-36].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Troesch’s access control system by incorporating Hamza’s verification flow in which detecting skin is performed on the image, a feature vector (3D face feature vector) is generated, a comparison (one-to-one matching process) is performed against a template (normalized image templates), and the resulting match determines passage through the access point. This modification improves Troesch by filtering disguised facial portions based on facial verification before access is granted, thereby improving access authentication accuracy.
Regarding claims 2 and 16, TROESCH teaches wherein the at least one first device and/or the at least one second device are mobile electronic devices [Para. 23, 37-39 and 43].
Regarding claim 3, TROESCH teaches wherein the access request further comprises access user data (device specific identifier) [Para. 47 and 44. Since the claim doesn’t explicitly define as to what access user data is, its reasonably interpreted to mean device specific identifier].
Regarding claim 9, TROESCH teaches wherein the first device and/or the second device is a smartphone [Para. 42].
Regarding claim 10, TROESCH teaches wherein more than one image is recorded in response to the access request [Para. 41].
Regarding claim 11, TROESCH teaches wherein at least one of the images is suitable for extracting at least one facial feature of a user [Para. 41].
Claim 12 is rejected for the same reason as claim 1. Furthermore, TROESCH teaches a device, camera, processor and memory to perform the claim limitation [See fig. 2 and 3 and related description].
Claims 4 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over TROESCH et al. (Pub. No. US 2021/0049847) in view of Hamza et al. (Pub. No. US 2004/0240711). further in view of Ortiz et al. (Pub. No. US 2011/0001827).
Regarding claim 4, TROESCH in view of Hamza doesn’t explicitly teach the claim limitation.
However, Ortiz teaches a process decision is generated by comparing the access user data (RFID identification number) with enrollment user data (registered user profile) and generating the access signal is further based on the process decision [Para. 38 and 41].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing data to modify TROESCH’s access control decision logic, modified by Hamza, by incorporating Ortiz’s comparison of an RFID identification number with a registered user profile before outputting the access control result. This modification improves TROESCH by adding an express enrollment profile verification gate before access is granted thereby improving access control reliability.
Regarding claim 5, TROESCH in view of Hamza doesn’t explicitly teach the claim limitation.
However, Ortiz teaches wherein the second device (remote server) receives the access user data (identification number) for selecting the template (biometric template) [Para. 31 and 36].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing data to modify TROESCH’s template providing second device arrangement, modified by Hamza, by incorporating Ortiz’s remote server that receives an identification number and user it to retrieve the corresponding user profile and biometric templates, thereby supporting scalable access control for many enrolled users.
Claims 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over TROESCH et al. (Pub. No. US 2021/0049847) in view of Hamza et al. (Pub. No. US 2004/0240711) further in view of Pfursich et. al. (Pub. NO. US 2016/0335483).
Regarding claims 6 and 12 TROESCH in view of Hamza doesn’t explicitly teach the claim limitation.
However, Pfursich teaches wherein the at least one image comprises a reflection pattern (reflected pattern) generated in response to illumination with patterned light (known pattern) [Para. 67, 70, and 74].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing data to modify TROESCH and Hamza’s camera based facial authentication image capture by incorporating Pfursich’s projection of a known pattern and detection of the reflected pattern in the captured image. This modification improves TROAESCH by adding proof detection information to the facial authentication image, thereby reducing the risk that a displayed image will improperly obtain access.
Regarding claim 7, TROESCH in view of Hamza doesn’t explicitly teach the claim limitation.
However, Pfursich teaches wherein the light (IR emission) is in the infrared spectral range [Para. 37 “In an example, the pattern may be uniform. In an example, the pattern may be non-uniform. In an example, the pattern may be in the visible light spectrum. In an example, the pattern may be in a non-visible light spectrum. In an example, the non-visible light spectrum of the pattern includes IR light.”; Para. 38 “In an example, the pattern is emitted in a non-visible spectrum, for example by the emitter 150. In an example, the non-visible spectrum emission is an IR emission.”].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing data to modify TROESCH and Hamza’s camera based facial authentication image capture by incorporating Pfursich’s projection of a known pattern and detection of the reflected pattern in the captured image. This modification improves TROAESCH by adding proof detection information to the facial authentication image, thereby reducing the risk that a displayed image will improperly obtain access.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SOLOMON G BEZUAYEHU whose telephone number is (571)270-7452. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 10 AM-8 PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Oneal Mistry can be reached on 313-446-4912. 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, call 888-786-0101 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-4000.
/SOLOMON G BEZUAYEHU/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2666
Prosecution Insights