DETAILED 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 office action is a non-final rejection on the merits. The application is a national stage entry of PCT/CA2023/050120 claiming priority to U.S. Provisional Application 63/304,608,
filed January 29, 2022. Claims 1-32 are pending and examined below; claims 1, 12, 13, 15, 17, 23, 27, 28, and 29 were amended by the Preliminary Amendment dated May 20, 2026.
Claim Interpretation
For the purposes of examination, the term “porous structure” in step (d) of claims 1 and 17 is given its broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification (MPEP 2111). The specification does not use “porous” to mean that a physical structure contains holes. Rather, a porous structure is a zone in which the identified pixels of step (b) are missing or fragmented, such that the high-saturation and high-value pixels form many small, scattered, neighboring connected components separated by gaps, as is produced by a glint rather than a genuine hologram. See specification ¶ 34 (FIG. 6 shows “non-hologram pixels associated with a glint in the initial image, the selected pixels having a porous structure figured by small neighboring components”), ¶ 54 (the glint-associated pixels “represent a pixel zone having a porous structure figured by small neighboring components”) and ¶ 55 (because of “the porous aspect in some parts of” the identified pixel set, those connected components “are not all significant with respect of the extraction of a hologram”). Accordingly, “removing … any connected components belonging to a porous structure” is construed as removing connected components that form part of such a glint-induced, fragmented, and scattered set of pixels, and not as removing a structure having physical holes.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 17, and claims 2-16 and 18-32 by dependency, are objected to because the word “difference” in step (g) is missing some letters.
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 17, and claims 2-16 and 18-32 by dependency, 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.
Step (h) of claims 1 and 17 recites setting a document score by computing an average of all the computed differences; however, step (g) provides antecedent basis only for a difference (singular). The number of computed differences forming the recited average is therefore unclear, rendering the metes and bounds indefinite. Correction is required, for example by amending step (g) to recite computing differences for different pairs of the at least two images so that step (h) has proper antecedent basis.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 17, and claims 2-16 and 18-32 by dependency, are objected to because the word difference in step (g) is missing some letters.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-4, 6, 9-13, 16-20, 22, 25-29, and 32 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arlazarov et al., US 10,354,142 B2 (hereinafter "Arlazarov '142") in view of Arlazarov et al., US 12,300,009 B2 (hereinafter "Arlazarov '009") and further in view of Hartl et al., "Efficient Verification of Holograms Using Mobile Augmented Reality" (hereinafter "Hartl").
Claim 1.
Arlazarov '142 discloses a method for the authentication of a hologram protected document, the method comprising the steps of:
a) obtaining at least two images of the document (Arlazarov '142: "A method is considered for hologram detection in video stream V, consisting of K document images I1, ... , IK in the RGB color space" (col. 3, line(s) 40-45).);
b) identifying in each of the at least two images pixels having a saturation and a value above respective saturation and value thresholds (Arlazarov '142: "S=S(R, G,B)=max(R,G,B)-min(R, G,B)" (col. 4, lines 20-30); gamma correction is made "to amplify the maxima regions, then it is binarized" (col. 3, lines 35-40).);
c) building a set of identified pixels connected components from the identified pixels of step b) for each of the at least two images (Arlazarov '142: "finding the connected components on the binary map" (col. 6). This teaches building connected components from the identified pixels.);
d) removing from the set of identified pixels connected components any connected components belonging to
e) computing a number of hues present in each remaining connected component of the set of identified pixels connected components and normalizing the number of hues according to a size of each of the remaining connected component from of the set of identified pixels connected components (Arlazarov '142: a weighted hue histogram is associated with each window in which "the intervals (bins) are the values of the hue and the partitioning is made to U intervals" over a window of fixed area (2w+ 1)2 (col. 4, lines 60-65). As the specification defines the limitation, “C(X) gives the number of different hues contained in a set X of pixels, |X| gives the area of X” (¶ 60), the count of populated hue intervals of the fixed window area is a number of hues normalized to a region size. This teaches step e.);
f) removing from the remaining connected components of the set of identified pixels connected components any connected component associated with a normalized number of hues below a specified hue number value (Arlazarov '142 reduces its per-window hue analysis to an integral map and thresholds it: "its binarization by the Otsu method may be performed to obtain a binary map of the presence of the holograms" (col. 6, Final Holographic Elements Regions Determination), and “the connected components” (col. 6, lines 35-36) are then found on that binarized map. The Otsu method, computed automatically from the data, is the specified hue number value; connected components whose hue derived value falls below it are not retained.);
g) determining the presence of a hologram by computing a difference between color features of the remaining connected components of the set of identified pixels connected components of different images of the at least two images (Arlazarov '142: "estimating a change in the color characteristics ... by calculating a difference between the histograms of a current and a
previous frame … map of hologram presences estimates" (Abstract; col. 1-2, lines 65-67). This teaches determining hologram presence from the color-feature difference between different images.);
h) setting a document score by computing an average of all the computed differences (Arlazarov '142: the per-frame difference estimates are combined “for all video stream frames” into an integrated map (Abstract; col. 3) "constructing an integrated map of hologram presence estimates by combining calculated estimates for all video stream frames" (Abstract; col. 6). Arlazarov ‘009 computes “the average value of the chromaticity vectors of all processed images” (col. 2). This teaches averaging the computed differences across the images; the reduction of that average to a single document score that is thresholded to authenticate is supplied by Hartl (see step i).);
i)
Arlazarov '142 discloses all the subject matter above except for specifically teaching steps d) and i). Arlazarov ' 142 selects only the connected component of largest area and does not remove components belonging to a porous structure. However, Arlazarov '009, in the same field of hologram detection in document images, teaches removing connected components belonging to a porous structure (Arlazarov '009: "finding connectivity components in the filtered image and filtering the connectivity components in accordance with a priori knowledge about a shape of holograms" (col. 6, claim 1). Under the construction of “porous structure” set forth above, a glint produces a fragmented, scattered set of connectivity components separated by missing pixels that does not conform to the coherent a priori shape of a hologram; filtering out the connectivity components that do not conform to that shape therefore removes the connected components belonging to a porous structure.)
Arlazarov '142 and Arlazarov '009 do not specifically teach step i), authenticating the hologram protected document when the document score is above a specified document score value, outputting instead the presence and location of the hologram. However, Hartl teaches rendering an authentication decision when a hologram score exceeds a threshold (Hartl: "We first evaluate a series of similarity measures for matching hologram patches to provide a sound basis for automatic decisions" and "The required matching thresholds are selected
automatically" (Abstract; § 3 p. 5). This teaches authenticating the document when the
hologram score is above a specified value.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Arlazarov '142 with Arlazarov '009 and Hartl. Arlazarov '009 expressly identifies Arlazarov '142 as prior art and is directed to improving its hologram search approach against lighting changes and specular glare, supplying a direct reason to incorporate its connectivity-component shape filtering to discard the scattered, non-hologram shaped components that glints produce as false positives. Both Arlazarov '142 and Hartl reduce the hologram evidence to a scalar measure, Arlazarov ' 142 as an integrated presence estimate and Hartl as an automatically thresholded matching score; applying an automatic threshold to such a scalar to output a binary accept-or-reject decision is a known technique that yields the predictable result of authenticating the document (MPEP 2143(A)). Arlazarov ' 142 itself cites Hartl as pertinent art, confirming the references are analogous and would have been consulted together with a reasonable expectation of success.
Claim 17.
Arlazarov ' 142 in view of Arlazarov '009 and Hartl discloses a system for the authentication of a
hologram protected document, the system comprising: a camera; at least one processor
operatively connected to the camera, the at least one processor having an associated memory
having stored therein processor executable code that when executed by the at least one processor performs the steps of a) obtaining at least two images of the document from the camera (Hartl: hologram verification is performed on "standard mobile devices" having a camera (Abstract); Arlazarov '142: a "non-transitory computer readable medium may include
instructions for causing one or more processors to perform" the method, receiving "a video
stream; and a processor" (col. 9-10; FIG. 4). This teaches the recited camera, processor, and
memory storing executable code.). Steps b) through i) of claim 17 recite the same operations as steps b) through i) of claim 1 and are rejected for the reasons given for claim 1 above, including the strikethrough of steps d) and i) supplied by Arlazarov '009 and Hartl respectively. The motivation to combine is the same as set forth for claim 1.
Claim 2 and 18.
Arlazarov '142 in view of Arlazarov '009 and Hartl disclose a method for the authentication of a hologram protected document according to claim 1, wherein the document is an identity document (Arlazarov '142: the “a document image 120” appears to be a license (col 3, FIGS. 1-2).
Claims 3 and 19.
Arlazarov '142 in view of Arlazarov '009 and Hartl disclose a method for the authentication of a hologram protected document according to claim 2, wherein the identity document is selected from a group consisting of a passport and a consular card (Hartl: "Paper documents such as passports, visas and banknotes are frequently checked by inspection of security elements" (Abstract); Arlazarov '142 is directed to documents bearing holographic elements. This teaches the identity-document, passport, and consular-card recitations.).
Claims 4 and 20.
Arlazarov '142 in view of Arlazarov '009 and Hartl disclose a method for the authentication of a hologram protected document according to claim 1, wherein at step b) the saturation threshold and the value threshold are determined from respective saturation and value histograms (Arlazarov '142: the saturation and color-tone maps are histogrammed per window and "its binarization by the Otsu method may be performed" (col. 6), the Otsu method selecting the threshold from the histogram. This teaches determining the thresholds from the respective histograms.).
Claims 6 and 22.
A method for the authentication of a hologram protected document according to claim 1, wherein step a) includes expressing the at least two images in the HSV colors space (Arlazarov '009: "the modulus of the chromaticity vector is equal to a saturation of the pixel and the angle of the chromaticity vector is equal to a hue of the pixel" (col. 6, claim 1); Arlazarov '142 computes saturation and hue per pixel. This teaches an HSV representation.).
Claims 9-10 and 25-26.
Arlazarov '142 in view of Arlazarov '009 and Hartl teaches wherein the specified hue number value and the specified document score value are determined using a set of training images (Hartl selects its "matching thresholds ... automatically" from evaluated samples (Abstract; § 3), and fixing a result-effective threshold from a representative set of training images is no more than routine, predictable optimization. It would have been obvious to determine the recited values from a training set to improve detection accuracy.).
Claims 11-13 and 27-29.
Arlazarov '142 in view of Arlazarov '009 and Hartl teaches teaches wherein the at least two images are obtained by extracting frames from a video of the document, and step g) is
performed for pairs of consecutive or distant frames (Arlazarov '142: detection operates on
"video stream V, consisting of K document images" and compares "the histograms of a
current and a previous frame" (col. 3 and col. 5). This teaches extracting video frames and
computing the difference for consecutive frame pairs; computing it for distant pairs is an
obvious choice of which frames to compare.)
Claims 16 and 32.
Arlazarov ' 142 in view of Arlazarov '009 and Hartl teaches wherein the steps are in the form of executable code for execution by a processor of a smartphone or tablet (Hartl: "Augmented
Reality can provide all relevant information on standard mobile devices" (Abstract). This
teaches implementation on a smartphone or tablet.).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5, 7-8, 14-15, 21, 23-24, and 30-31 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The eligibility of claims 1-32 under 35 U.S.C. 101 was considered. Any abstract idea in the claimed hue and color-difference computations is integrated into a practical application, namely an improved technique for authenticating an identity document from its hologram on a standard mobile camera without a priori knowledge of the hologram position; no rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 is made.
The prior art made of record but not relied, yet considered pertinent to the applicant’s disclosure, includes the references identified in the International Search Report for PCT/CA2023/050120 and the Global Dossier citations for this family.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Ross Varndell whose telephone number is (571)270-1922. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9-5 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, O’Neal Mistry can be reached at (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 https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. 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.
/Ross Varndell/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2674
Prosecution Insights