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 .
DETAILED ACTION
1. This action is responsive to the preliminary amendment filed on 12/11/2024.
Information Disclosure Statement
2. The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 12/11/2024 & 2/27/2026 were filed after the mailing date of the instant application. 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 103
5. 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.
6. Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Khan (US 2015/0341370) in view of Witchey et al (US 2020/0387591).
Regarding claim 1, Khan teaches a method comprising:
capturing an image depicting an identity document (fig. 2, ‘210), the identity document comprising biographical data and a portrait (fig. 2, which discloses a driver’s license containing a picture and the driver’s personal information);
generating a biometric representation based on the portrait (par [0057], which discloses that a plurality of biometric elements may be utilized for authentication verification); and
accessing security information associated with the identity document (par [0010], lines 1-10, which discloses security features contained within an identification card).
Khan does not explicitly teach generating a hash based on the biographical data; comparing the security information to at least one of the hash or biometric representation; and
authenticating the identity document based on a result of comparing the security information to at least one of the hash or biometric representation.
However, Witchey et al teaches generating a hash based on the biographical data (fig. 3, ‘304-‘320, par [0121], lines 5-15, which discloses applying a token, including a blockchain hash, to metadata associated with a digital content’s author information);
comparing the security information to at least one of the hash or biometric representation (par [0009], which discloses using the author’s biometric information and image of the author, which may include a portrait or photograph of the author, for validation/digital authentication); and
authenticating the identity document based on a result of comparing the security information to at least one of the hash or biometric representation (fig. 18, par [0008-0009], par [0035], lines 1-3, par [0095], and par [0173], lines 20-22, which disclose using the authentication token and/or the author’s biometric data to validate the user’s provided identification, which may include a driver’s license, passport, etc., upon determining that the user’s identification matches).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Witchey et al within the document authenticity verification system of Khan in order to provide the predictive result of improving user content authentication by allowing multiple factors of authentication to be utilized for said content authentication (as disclosed in par [0009] of Witchey et al) because this implementation would allow the users of Khan’s verification environment to gain authentication via additional intrinsic data, such as DNA sequence information, vital signs, iris information, etc.
Regarding claim 2, Khan and Witchey et al teach the limitations of claim 1.
Khan further teaches wherein the identity document comprises an electronic identity card or electronic passport (par [0009], lines 1-4), the portrait depicting a face of a person.
Regarding claim 3, Khan does not explicitly teach extracting reference hash and biometric information from the security information; and comparing the reference hash and biometric information to the generated hash and biometric representation.
However, Witchey et al teaches extracting reference hash and biometric information from the security information (par [0192], lines 1-10, “reference token”); and comparing the reference hash and biometric information to the generated hash and biometric representation (par [0192], lines 1-10, “reference token could be shuffled with a new random hash…comparison of old tokens to the newly shuffled reference token”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Witchey et al within the document authenticity verification system of Khan according to the motivation disclosed regarding claim 1.
Regarding claim 4, Khan does not explicitly teach determining that the identity document is authentic in response to determining that the reference hash and biometric information corresponds to the generated hash and biometric representation.
However, Witchey et al teaches determining that the identity document is authentic in response to determining that the reference hash and biometric information corresponds to the generated hash and biometric representation (par [0181] and par [0192], which disclose performing identity validation upon determining that the reference tokens stored on a hash matched the referenced tokens).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Witchey et al within the document authenticity verification system of Khan in order to provide the predictive result of improving user content authentication by allowing multiple factors of authentication to be utilized for said content authentication (as disclosed in par [0009] of Witchey et al) because this implementation would allow the users of Khan’s verification environment to gain authentication via additional intrinsic data, such as DNA sequence information, vital signs, iris information, etc.
Regarding claim 5, Khan does not explicitly teach determining that the identity document is not authentic in response to determining that one or more of the reference hash and biometric information fails to correspond to the generated hash and biometric representation.
However, Witchey et al teaches determining that the identity document is not authentic in response to determining that one or more of the reference hash and biometric information fails to correspond to the generated hash and biometric representation (par [0192], which discloses failed authentication when comparing newly implemented reference tokens).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Witchey et al within the document authenticity verification system of Khan according to the motivation disclosed regarding claim 4.
Regarding claim 6, Khan does not explicitly teach wherein the security information is accessed from a remote server by accessing a link encoded on a reference included in the identity document.
However, Witchey et al teaches wherein the security information is accessed from a remote server by accessing a link encoded on a reference included in the identity document (par [0050], lines 3-6, “providing a link in the original digital work to the digital authentication token”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Witchey et al within the document authenticity verification system of Khan according to the motivation disclosed regarding claim 4.
Regarding claim 7, Khan and Witchey et al teach the limitations of claim 1.
Khan further teaches wherein the security information is accessed from a local electronic device embedded in the identity document (par [0010], lines 1-10).
Regarding claim 8, Khan and Witchey et al teach the limitations of claim 1.
Khan further teaches wherein the portrait includes a security layer on top of a face of a person (fig. 1, ‘160).
Regarding claim 9, Khan teaches performing object character recognition on the image to extract the biographical data (par [0059], lines 1-3, “OCR”);
using face recognition to extract the portrait from the identity document (par [0160], line 17);
verifying an issuer signature retrieved from the protected memory (par [0047], lines 11-12, “signature of the user”); and
confirming a retrieved identifier of electronic device matches an identifier of the electronic device stored in the protected memory (par [0228-0229]).
Khan does not explicitly teach using the hash to access reference biometric information from a protected memory of an electronic device embedded in the identity document; generating the hash based on the extracted biographical data; and comparing the reference biometric information to the extracted portrait to determine whether the identity document is authentic.
However, Witchey et al teaches using the hash to access reference biometric information from a protected memory of an electronic device embedded in the identity document (par [0139], lines 1-10, “based on the outputs of the rolling hash”);
generating the hash based on the extracted biographical data (par [0176], lines 9-11); and
comparing the reference biometric information to the extracted portrait to determine whether the identity document is authentic (par [0138], lines 1-10, “DNA sequence”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Witchey et al within the document authenticity verification system of Khan in order to provide the predictive result of improving user content authentication by allowing multiple factors of authentication to be utilized for said content authentication (as disclosed in par [0009] of Witchey et al) because this implementation would allow the users of Khan’s verification environment to gain authentication via additional intrinsic data, such as DNA sequence information, vital signs, iris information, etc.
Regarding claim 10, Khan does not explicitly teach wherein accessing the security information comprises: obtaining a universal resource locator (URL) from an electronic device embedded in the identity document; and retrieving the security information from the URL.
However, Witchey et al teaches wherein accessing the security information comprises: obtaining a universal resource locator (URL) from an electronic device embedded in the identity document (par [0189], lines 23-28); and
retrieving the security information from the URL (par [0189], lines 23-28, “lookup database”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Witchey et al within the document authenticity verification system of Khan according to the motivation disclosed regarding claim 9.
Regarding claim 11, Khan does not explicitly teach wherein the electronic device provides a one-time passcode (OTP) in addition to the URL, wherein the security information is retrieved from the URL based on the OTP.
However, Witchey et al teaches wherein the electronic device provides a one-time passcode (OTP) in addition to the URL, wherein the security information is retrieved from the URL based on the OTP (par [0191], lines 8-10, “temporary or one-time-use”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Witchey et al within the document authenticity verification system of Khan according to the motivation disclosed regarding claim 9.
Regarding claim 12, Khan does not explicitly teach wherein a secure portion of an electronic device embedded in the identity document is accessed using the generated hash of the biographical data.
However, Witchey et al teaches wherein a secure portion of an electronic device embedded in the identity document is accessed using the generated hash of the biographical data (par [0121], lines 13-17).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Witchey et al within the document authenticity verification system of Khan according to the motivation disclosed regarding claim 9.
Regarding claim 13, Khan and Witchey et al teach the limitations of claim 1.
Khan further teaches wherein a secure portion of an electronic device embedded in the identity document is accessed using a portion of the biographical data (fig. 1, ‘160 & ‘240).
Regarding claim 14, Khan and Witchey et al teach the limitations of claim 1.
Khan further teaches accessing a remote database storing a status indicating validity of the security information (fig. 1, ‘250, “Identity Attribute Database”).
Regarding claim 15, Khan teaches a method for generating security information, the method comprising:
using face recognition to extract a portrait from an identity document (par [0160], line 17, “facial recognition”);
transforming at least a portion of the extracted portrait into a reference biometric information (par [0057], lines 1-5, “biometric engine”); and
performing object character recognition on the identity document to extract biographical data (Abstract, lines 7-8, “correlating the information extracted from the identity document”).
Khan does not explicitly teach generating a reference hash using the extracted biographical data; and storing the reference biometric information in a protected memory using the reference hash.
However, Witchey et al teaches generating a reference hash using the extracted biographical data (fig. 3, ‘304-‘320, par [0121], lines 5-15, which discloses applying a token, including a blockchain hash, to metadata associated with a digital content’s author information);
and storing the reference biometric information in a protected memory using the reference hash (fig. 18, par [0008-0009], par [0035], lines 1-3, par [0095], and par [0173], lines 20-22, which disclose using the authentication token and/or the author’s biometric data to validate the user’s provided identification, which may include a driver’s license, passport, etc., upon determining that the user’s identification matches).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Witchey et al within the document authenticity verification system of Khan in order to provide the predictive result of improving user content authentication by allowing multiple factors of authentication to be utilized for said content authentication (as disclosed in par [0009] of Witchey et al) because this implementation would allow the users of Khan’s verification environment to gain authentication via additional intrinsic data, such as DNA sequence information, vital signs, iris information, etc.
Regarding claim 16, Khan and Witchey et al teach the limitations of claim 15.
Khan further teaches storing the security information locally on the identity document or remotely on a server (fig. 1, ‘250, “Identity Attribute Database”).
Regarding claim 17, Khan teaches retrieving an identifier of an electronic device embedded in the identity document (par [0041], lines 13-15);
signing the identifier of the electronic device (par [0045], lines 7-8), and
the reference biometric information (par [0057], lines 1-5).
Khan doesn’t explicitly teach signing the reference hash.
However, Witchey et al teaches signing the reference hash (par [0013], lines 6-7).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Witchey et al within the document authenticity verification system of Khan according to the motivation disclosed regarding claim 15.
Regarding claim 18, Khan does not explicitly teach storing the reference hash in the protected memory.
However, Witchey et al teaches storing the reference hash in the protected memory (par [0121], lines 14-15).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Witchey et al within the document authenticity verification system of Khan according to the motivation disclosed regarding claim 15.
Regarding claim 19, Khan teaches a system comprising:
one or more processors configured to perform operations (par [0141], lines 1-3) comprising:
capturing an image depicting an identity document (fig. 2, ‘210), the identity document comprising biographical data and a portrait (fig. 2, which discloses a driver’s license containing a picture and the driver’s personal information);
generating a biometric representation based on the portrait (par [0057], which discloses that a plurality of biometric elements may be utilized for authentication verification); and
accessing security information associated with the identity document (par [0010], lines 1-10, which discloses security features contained within an identification card).
Khan does not explicitly teach generating a hash based on the biographical data; comparing the security information to at least one of the hash or biometric representation; and
authenticating the identity document based on a result of comparing the security information to at least one of the hash or biometric representation.
However, Witchey et al teaches generating a hash based on the biographical data (fig. 3, ‘304-‘320, par [0121], lines 5-15, which discloses applying a token, including a blockchain hash, to metadata associated with a digital content’s author information);
comparing the security information to at least one of the hash or biometric representation (par [0009], which discloses using the author’s biometric information and image of the author, which may include a portrait or photograph of the author, for validation/digital authentication); and
authenticating the identity document based on a result of comparing the security information to at least one of the hash or biometric representation (fig. 18, par [0008-0009], par [0035], lines 1-3, par [0095], and par [0173], lines 20-22, which disclose using the authentication token and/or the author’s biometric data to validate the user’s provided identification, which may include a driver’s license, passport, etc., upon determining that the user’s identification matches).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Witchey et al within the document authenticity verification system of Khan in order to provide the predictive result of improving user content authentication by allowing multiple factors of authentication to be utilized for said content authentication (as disclosed in par [0009] of Witchey et al) because this implementation would allow the users of Khan’s verification environment to gain authentication via additional intrinsic data, such as DNA sequence information, vital signs, iris information, etc.
Regarding claim 20, Khan teaches a non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising non-transitory computer-readable instructions (par [0281], lines 1-4) that, when executed by one or more processors, configure the one or more processors to perform operations (par [0281], lines 2-6) comprising:
capturing an image depicting an identity document (fig. 2, ‘210), the identity document comprising biographical data and a portrait (fig. 2, which discloses a driver’s license containing a picture and the driver’s personal information);
generating a biometric representation based on the portrait (par [0057], which discloses that a plurality of biometric elements may be utilized for authentication verification); and
accessing security information associated with the identity document (par [0010], lines 1-10, which discloses security features contained within an identification card).
Khan does not explicitly teach generating a hash based on the biographical data; comparing the security information to at least one of the hash or biometric representation; and
authenticating the identity document based on a result of comparing the security information to at least one of the hash or biometric representation.
However, Witchey et al teaches generating a hash based on the biographical data (fig. 3, ‘304-‘320, par [0121], lines 5-15, which discloses applying a token, including a blockchain hash, to metadata associated with a digital content’s author information);
comparing the security information to at least one of the hash or biometric representation (par [0009], which discloses using the author’s biometric information and image of the author, which may include a portrait or photograph of the author, for validation/digital authentication); and
authenticating the identity document based on a result of comparing the security information to at least one of the hash or biometric representation (fig. 18, par [0008-0009], par [0035], lines 1-3, par [0095], and par [0173], lines 20-22, which disclose using the authentication token and/or the author’s biometric data to validate the user’s provided identification, which may include a driver’s license, passport, etc., upon determining that the user’s identification matches).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Witchey et al within the document authenticity verification system of Khan in order to provide the predictive result of improving user content authentication by allowing multiple factors of authentication to be utilized for said content authentication (as disclosed in par [0009] of Witchey et al) because this implementation would allow the users of Khan’s verification environment to gain authentication via additional intrinsic data, such as DNA sequence information, vital signs, iris information, etc.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Randy A. Scott whose telephone number is (571) 272-3797. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday 7:30 am-5:00 pm, second Fridays 7:30 am-4pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Luu Pham can be reached on (571) 270-5002. 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.
/RANDY A SCOTT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2439 20260404
Prosecution Insights