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 .
Re-open Prosecution
This is a Non-Final Office Action to replace the Non-Final Office Action mailed on January 15, 2025 in response to applicant email communication informing a typographical mistake in the heading of the earlier office action.
Claims 1-10 have been examined.
Drawings
The drawings filed on December 01, 2024 are acceptable for examination proceedings.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. 18/870671, filed on December 01, 2024.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on December 01, 2024 was filed after the mailing date of the application 18/870671, filed on December 01, 2024. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3, and 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hata et al. (JP 2010079394 A / or “Hata” hereinafter [provided by the applicant]).
Regarding claim 1, Hata discloses “Method for a computer aiding access to a service by a device provided with data-acquisition means and communication means, said service being accessible only subject to at least one condition, the method comprising” (Para 0001: data processing method):
“obtaining, by said device, identification data of a user, from said acquisition means of said device and from an identification document, said identification data comprising at least one photograph of said user and a characteristic of said user” (Para 0001: “The present invention relates to a data processing device used to provide an age-restricted service to service target users within a specific age range who possess official identification documents”),
“transmitting, by said device, said identification data obtained to a validation system” (Para 00018: lines 8-9: “…an image receiving unit that receives a document image of the official identification document from the target user”),
“in response to said identification data transmitted, receiving, by said device, validation data confirming the validity of said identification document” (Para 0018:lines 9-12: “…a photo extraction unit that extracts a user's upper body photo based on the certificate document features stored from the received document image; an age estimation unit that estimates whether the target user is in the specific age range based on at !east one age-cultural characteristic from the extracted user's upper body photo…”),
“in response to said validation data received, creating and storing, by said device, a digital certificate” (Para 0019: lines 4-5, stores certificate),
“said digital certificate comprising at least one photograph of said user and said characteristic obtained” (Para 0019: lines 4-10, the certificate is obtained from official photo document),
“obtaining said characteristic and said at least one photograph from said digital certificate” (Para 0019: lines 4-10, “…photo extracting unit extracts a photo of the user's upper body from the received document image based on the certificate document features retained,…”),
“and comparing said at least one photograph to a real face to validate said characteristic, said service being accessed in response to a validation of said characteristic” (Para 0019: 13-15,validates the user based on the received document and stored certificate documents).
Regarding claim 2, in view of claim 1, Hata discloses “further comprising obtaining, by said device, a current photograph of said user, said current photograph being obtained from said acquisition means of said device, said at least one photograph of said digital certificate being said current photograph” (Para 0018: “…an image receiving unit for receiving a captured document image of an official document captured from a service target user, and a certificate document feature held from the received captured document image”; Para 0033: “The data processing method of the present invention is used to provide age-restricted services to service target users within a specific age range who possess at least an official certificate on which a photograph of the user's upper body is published”; and Para 0019: “…it is confirmed whether the service target user is in a specific age range, and the provision of the age-restricted service is permitted”.
Regarding claim 3, in view of claim 2, Hata discloses “further comprising a transmission, by said device, of said current photograph to said validation system to verify that said user is an owner of said identity document” (Para 0018: “…an image receiving unit for receiving a captured document image of an official document captured from a service target user, and a certificate document feature held from the received captured document image”; Para 0033: “The data processing method of the present invention is used to provide age-restricted services to service target users within a specific age range who possess at least an official certificate on which a photograph of the user's upper body is published”; and Para 0019: “…it is confirmed whether the service target user is in a specific age range, and the provision of the age-restricted service is permitted”.
Regarding claim 9, claim 9 is directed to a media corresponding to the method recited in claim 1. Claim 10 is similar in scope to claim 1, and is therefore, rejected under similar rationale.
Regarding claim 10, claim 10 is directed to a device corresponding to the method recited in claim 1. Claim 10 is similar in scope to claim 1, and is therefore, rejected under similar rationale.
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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hata in view of Seppala et al. (NPL: “Enhancing Image Coding for Machines with Compressed Feature Residuals” 2021, IEE, Pages: 217-225 / or “Seppala” hereinafter [Provided by the applicant]).
Regarding claim 4, in view of claim 1, Hata validates a user based on the received document and stored certificate documents (Para 0019).
But Hata fails to specially disclose compressing and encoding a photograph and characteristics of a digital certificate.
However, Seppala discloses “further comprising at least one of compressing and encoding said at least one photograph and of said characteristic of said digital certificate” (Seppala, Abstract: “…we propose a novel image coding technique targeted for machines, while maintaining the capability for human consumption. Our proposed codec generates two bitstreams: one bitstream from a traditional codec, referred to as human bitstream, optimized for human consumption; the other bitstream, referred to as machine bitstream, generated from an end-to-end learned neural network-based codec and optimized for machine tasks. Instead of working on the image domain, the proposed machine bitstream is derived from feature residuals - the difference between tile features extracted from the input image and the features extracted from the reconstructed image generated by the traditional codec...”).
It would have been obvious to an ordinary person skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ the teachings of compressing and encoding a photograph and characteristics of a digital certificate of Seppala to the system of Hata to generate codec that is consumable by human and machine (Seppala, Introduction Col 2: Para 2) and the ordinary person skilled in the art would have been motivated to combine to “…encodes the image into a low bitrate bitstream. This bitstream is then decoded, resulting in a reconstructed image…” (Section B: Para).
Claims 5-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hata in view of De Fuentes et al. (NPL: “Assessment of attribute-based credentials for privacy-preserving road traffic services in smart cities”, 2017, PERSONAL AND UBIQUITOUS COMPUTING,, Pages 869-891 / or “De Fuentes” hereinafter [Provided by the applicant]).
Regarding claim 5, in view of claim 1, Hata validates a user based on the received document and stored certificate documents (Para 0019).
But Hata fails to specially disclose calculating a signature based on a photograph and characteristics of a digital certificate.
However, De Fuentes discloses “further comprising calculating a signature based on at least one of said at least one photograph and said characteristic of said digital certificate by said device, said signature being added to said digital certificate” (De Fuentes, Section 3.2: Para 1, “… ABCs are issued like ordinary cryptographic credentials (e.g. X.509 credentials) using a digital (secret) signature key [ 45]-basically a PKI with privacy-enhancing features. In ABCs, the main enhancing feature is that credential's attributes could be transformed into unlinkable and non-transferable presentation tokens1 able to protect the holder's privacy, while offering the same level of security…”).
It would have been obvious to an ordinary person skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ the teachings of calculating a signature based on a photograph and characteristics of a digital certificate of De Fuentes to the system of Hata to … and the ordinary person skilled in the art would have been motivated to combine …. (De Fuentes).
Regarding claim 6, in view of claim 1, Hata in view of De Fuentes disclose “further comprising: obtaining, by said device, data relating to said service, encoding, by said device, said data obtained relating to said service and data of said digital certificate in an access code to provide access to said service, and transmitting, by said device, said access code to a terminal of an operator, said terminal being configured to decode data of said access code and to display at least said at least one photograph of said digital certificate and information obtained from said characteristic of said digital certificate” (De Fuentes, Section 3.3: a token i.e., “access code” is presented; and Section 3.3.1:” When the verifier receives the presentation token, it verifies that the statements are logically satisfied as well as the validity of the cryptographic evidence.)[see claim 5 for motivation].
Regarding claim 7, in view of claim 6, Hata in view of De Fuentes disclose “further comprising displaying said access code on said device” (De Fuentes, Section 3.3: a token i.e., “access code” is presented)[see claim 5 for motivation].
Regarding claim 8, in view of claim 6, Hata in view of De Fuentes disclose “further comprising: receiving, by said terminal, said access code obtaining, in said terminal, said at least one photograph of said digital certificate encoded in said access code” (Section 3.2: "Presentation: it is one of the most important stages from the ABC life-cycle. Verifiers request a credential and users provide it (or a presentation token derived from it) to be later verified";),
“displaying, by said terminal, said at least one photograph of said digital certificate encoded in said access code and said information obtained from said characteristic of said digital certificate” (Para 0001),
“and in response to a validation, on said terminal, of an operator following said display of said at least one photograph” (De Fuentes, Section 3.3: a token i.e., “access code” is presented; and Section 3.3.1: "Issuer parameters are cryptographic information used by service providers to verify the authenticity of presentation tokens, i.e. issuer's public key, identifier of a cryptographically secure hash algorithm, revocation information -if revocation process is supported, etc. The issuance key (secret key) needs to be kept secret and it is used by the issuer to issue credentials").[see claim 5 for motivation].
Relevant Prior Arts
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Ryner et al. (US 11334931 B2) discloses:
[Abstract] ….determining that an age validation is not enabled, requiring that the user submit an identification instrument to verify an age of the user, after the purchase is complete, prompting the user to enable the age validation feature of the mobile wallet application of the user mobile device, directing a software application loaded on the user mobile device to access at least one biometric data input functionality of the user mobile device to capture the at least one biometric of the user, and comparing biometric features of the user captured by at least one camera.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ABDULLAH ALMAMUN whose telephone number is (571) 270-3392. The examiner can normally be reached on 8 AM - 5 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, Lynn Feild can be reached on (571) 272-2092. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ABDULLAH ALMAMUN/Examiner, Art Unit 2431
/LYNN D FEILD/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2431