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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 12 December 2024 is being considered by the examiner.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
On page 17 of the specification, line 8, reference numeral 30 is referenced: “ sensitive area 30 12 within the image (10), for” However, the sensitive area in the drawings is just labeled 12, thus the “30” appears to be in error and should be removed.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-12 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.
First, claim 1 recites “a division sub-step that divides the image into a plurality of image sections that correspond to pre-set sensitive areas of the image” but then recites “the pre-set sensitive area” numerous times. Thus, it is unclear which of the preset areas is being referred to or if the claim meant to say “the pre-set sensitive areas.”
Second, claim 1 recites “a plurality of verification steps comprising a type verification step, a structural control step, a compilation analysis step, a compatibility verification step, an evaluation step, able to identify a presence of the pre-set sensitive area within the image, to perform a comparison between the pre-set sensitive area within the image and at least one pre-set sensitive area of at least one comparison image of at least one sample recognition document present in the memory, and to extract at least one data item from the pre-set sensitive area of the image.” It is unclear if each of the recited steps is able to identify, perform comparison and extract at least one data item, as is disclosed in the specification, or if all of them together only need to perform these once. Further, the claim allows for only one data item to be extracted, where if all of the steps perform the functions claimed, then it is unclear how there could only be a single data item. The steps are not separated by an “or” or an “and” which contributes to the ambiguity of the limitation.
Third, claim 1 recites “to extract at least one data item from the pre-set sensitive area of the image” which means that there could be two or three or more data items extracted, however, the claim then recites “the data item” numerous times. Thus, it is unclear which of the data items is being referred to or if the claim meant to say “the data items” or “the at least one data item.”
Fourth, claim 1 recites “and at least one validity parameter present in memory” which means that there could be two or three or more validity parameters, however, the claim then recites “the validity parameter.” Thus, it is unclear which of the validity parameters is being referred to or if the claim meant to say “the validity parameters” or “the at least one validity parameter.”
Claims 2-12 are rejected due to their dependency from claim 1, and furthermore:
Claim 2 recites “the plurality of verification steps comprise: a sub-step of identification…a sub-step of comparison…a sub-step of extraction…” In the specification, each verification step is disclosed as comprising each of the claimed sub-steps so as to each extract a data item, so it is unclear how the plurality of them together can contain a single sub-step of identification, comparison and extraction for a single data item as claimed. Further, claim 2 recites both “the pre-set sensitive area” and “the data item”, where, as explain above, it is unclear based on claim 1 reciting “pre-set sensitive areas” and “at least one data item.”
Claim 3 recites “the at least one verification step” however, claim 1 recites “a plurality of verification steps.” Thus, it is unclear what claim 3 is even referring to in claim 1.
Claim 4-7 recites “wherein the verification step is…” however, claim 1 recites “a plurality of verification steps.” Thus, the claims are unclear. Further, each of these claims recites “the pre-set sensitive area” , where, as explain above, it is unclear based on claim 1 reciting “pre-set sensitive areas”
Claim 8 recites “wherein the discrepancy verification step…” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Thus, it is unclear which of the plurality of verification steps this claim is referring to. Further, claim 8 recites both “the data item” and “the validity parameter”, where, as explain above, it is unclear based on claim 1 reciting “at least one data item” and “at least one validity parameter.”
Claim 9 recites both “the pre-set sensitive area” and “the data item”, where, as explain above, it is unclear based on claim 1 reciting “pre-set sensitive areas” and “at least one data item.”
Claim 10 recites “the at least one verification step” however, claim 1 recites “a plurality of verification steps.” Thus, it is unclear what claim 3 is even referring to in claim 1. Further, claim 10 also recites “the processor performing the verification step” where as already mentioned above, claim 1 recites “a plurality of verification steps.”
For examination purposes, although the metes and bounds of the claimed invention is unclear due to repeated improper English and ambiguity between recitations within the claims as explained above, the examiner will interpret the claims when possible under the broadest reasonable interpretation regarding the claimed limitations as explained within the prior art rejections below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because the claim recites a computer program, which can merely be a signal. It is understood that software and programs can be implemented by a computer, however, are still non-statutory themselves without being embodied or tied to a non-transitory device.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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 1-2, 4-5, and 9-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ghanmi et al. (“A New Descriptor for Pattern Matching: Application to Identity Document Verification”).
Regarding claim 1, Ghanmi et al. disclose an image recognition process to verify an authenticity of a recognition document by means of an acquisition of at least one image of the recognition document (Section III. Identity Document Verification), wherein the process is implemented on an electronic computer comprising at least one processor for performing operations of the process and at least one memory, the process comprising:
a step of acquisition of the image of the recognition document, comprising a division sub-step that divides the image into a plurality of image sections that correspond to pre-set sensitive areas of the image (Section III. Identity Document Verification: “An identity document has an invariable background in addition to textual zones that contain field labels (name, sur- name, address, etc.) and the ID's holder personal information and eventually his photo. The document background is often characterized by some visual patterns or texture. There are two possible scenarios for the document verification…The second scenario is to consider only fixed zones that contain discriminant patterns or texture. In this scenario, verification zones must be defined for each document class. Its advantage is that it offers a more accurate comparison. In our experiments, we tested these two scenarios.”);
a plurality of verification steps comprising a type verification step, a structural control step, a compilation analysis step, a compatibility verification step, an evaluation step, able to identify a presence of the pre-set sensitive area within the image, to perform a comparison between the pre-set sensitive area within the image and at least one pre-set sensitive area of at least one comparison image of at least one sample recognition document present in the memory, and to extract at least one data item from the pre-set sensitive area of the image (Section III.B. Grid-3CD: a new descriptor for document verification, and Section IV. Experimentation, and Figure 1, where a pre-set area is identified, and a comparison is used to other similar documents [identification cards] shown in Figure 1, used in the dataset for training, and at least one data item is then extracted [feature vector], since this occurs for each of the preset regions then there is a plurality of verification steps.);
a plurality of discrepancy verification steps between the data item extracted from the pre-set sensitive area of the image and at least one validity parameter present in memory (Section III.B.2. Similarity measurement: this section explains that there will be a discrepancy verification step for each preset sensitive area [each vector], i.e. a plurality of discrepancy verification steps, where the comparison is made between the data items and the reference image, i.e. validity parameter, using formular (1).),
a step of generation of an outcome which determines the originality or falsity of the recognition document based on a match between the data item extracted from the pre-set sensitive area of the image and the validity parameter present in memory, wherein the step of generation of an outcome is based on a result of the sum of a multiplicity of statistical weights assigned to a multiplicity of the data item extracted from the pre-set sensitive area of the image (See above, Section III.B.2. Similarity measurement, the comparison in the plurality of discrepancy verification steps, uses the formula (1) to compute an outcome which determines the validity of the recognition document. See also Section IV. Experimentation: Results, and Table IV.).
Regarding claim 2, Ghanmi et al. disclose the process of claim 1, wherein the plurality of verification steps comprise:
a sub-step of identification of at least one pre-set sensitive area that provides for identifying a presence of the pre-set sensitive area within the image (Section III.B. Grid-3CD: a new descriptor for document verification, and Section IV. Experimentation, and Figure 1, where a pre-set area is identified.);
a sub-step of comparison between the pre-set sensitive area within the image and the pre-set sensitive area of the comparison image of at least one sample recognition document present in the memory (Section III.B. Grid-3CD: a new descriptor for document verification, and Section IV. Experimentation, and Figure 1, where a comparison is used to other similar documents [identification cards] shown in Figure 1, used in the dataset for training.);
a sub-step of extraction of the data item from the pre-set sensitive area of the image (Section III.B. Grid-3CD: a new descriptor for document verification, and Section IV. Experimentation, and Figure 1, where at least one data item is then extracted [feature vector].).
Regarding claim 4, Ghanmi et al. disclose the process of claim 1, wherein the verification step is a step of structural control of the document based on the image, wherein the pre-set sensitive area of the image concerns structural elements of the document (Section III.B. Grid-3CD: a new descriptor for document verification: the feature vector “concerns structural elements” [pixels] of the document.).
Regarding claim 5, Ghanmi et al. disclose the process of claim 1, wherein the verification step is a step of analysis of the compilation of the document based on the image, wherein the pre-set sensitive area of the image concerns compiled elements (Section III.B. Grid-3CD: a new descriptor for document verification: the vectors are compiled in formula (1).).
Regarding claim 9, Ghanmi et al. disclose the process of claim 1, wherein the data item extracted from the pre-set sensitive area is included in a list comprising personal data, sex, expiration, document number, at least one mathematical algorithm that calculates the data item, bar codes, anti-counterfeiting graphic elements, mandatory data of the document, date of issue, expiration date, date of birth, document numbers, font of the document number, character alignment, alignment of sections of the document, counterfeit matrices, nonexistent data, inconsistent data by date of issue, perspective, matrix, photocard, serial numbers illumination of the matrix, illumination of the photograph, contrast, colour (Section III.B. Grid-3CD: a new descriptor for document verification: The data item includes colour.).
Regarding claim 10, Ghanmi et al. disclose the process of claim 1, wherein the at least one verification step comprises a step of image recognition of the document or part of the document by means of the image, wherein the image recognition step provides that an artificial intelligence is instructed to recognise at least one pre-set sensitive area and the processor performing the verification step analyses the image by means of the artificial intelligence to verify that the pre-set sensitive area of at least one predefined image of the document present in memory is also present in the image (Section III.B. Grid-3CD: a new descriptor for document verification: This section described SVM and SVDD, which are artificial intelligence that perform the verification steps.).
Regarding claim 11, Ghanmi et al. disclose the process of claim 10, wherein the artificial intelligence is pre-instructed based on a training by means of a delivery of original documents from the memory (Section III.B. Grid-3CD and also see section IV. Experimentation: Datasets.).
Regarding claim 12, Ghanmi et al. disclose a computer program loadable into a memory of an electronic computer comprising instructions which, when the program is executed by the computer, implement an image recognition process to verify an authenticity of a recognition document by means of an acquisition of at least one image of the recognition document according to claim 1 (The described invention of Ghanmi et al. is a computer program, SVM, SVDD).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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.
Claims 3 and 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ghanmi et al. (“A New Descriptor for Pattern Matching: Application to Identity Document Verification”) in view of Sicre et al. (“Identity documents classification as an image classification problem”).
Regarding claim 3, Ghanmi et al. disclose the process of claim 1.
Ghanmi et al. fail to explicitly teach wherein the at least one verification step is a step of type verification of the recognition document based on the image for establishing the type of the recognition document based on at least one sensitive area of the image.
Sicre et al. disclose wherein at least one verification step is a step of type verification of the recognition document based on the image for establishing the type of the recognition document based on at least one sensitive area of the image (See section 4 Experiments, subsection 4.1 Datasets explains that different types of documents are used, e.g. passports, residence cards, identity cars, etc., and Section 4.2. Results explains that these types of documents are determined using their methodology.).
Hence the prior art includes each element claimed although not necessarily in a single prior art reference, with the only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art being the lack of the actual combination of the elements in a single prior art reference. In combination Ghanmi et al. performs the same function as it does separately of determining falsity of documents, and Sicre et al. performs the same function as it does separately of determining a type of document.
Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, and that in combination, each element merely performed the same function as it does separately. The results of the combination would have been predictable and resulted in the verification to determine falsity comprising determining a type of document.
Therefore, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 6, Ghanmi et al. disclose the process of claim 1.
Ghanmi et al. fail to teach wherein the verification step is a step of compatibility verification of the document based on the image, wherein the pre-set sensitive area of the image concerns particular graphics and/or fonts of characters and/or drawings that are used during a period of time in which the document is published.
Sicre et al. disclose wherein a verification step is a step of compatibility verification of the document based on the image, wherein the pre-set sensitive area of the image concerns particular graphics and/or fonts of characters and/or drawings that are used during a period of time in which the document is published (See section 4 Experiments, subsection 4.1 Datasets explains that different types of documents are used, e.g. residence cards, that are new and old, such that the preset areas would concern graphics/characters/drawings on the old or new cards that are used during the time period of those old or new cards.).
Hence the prior art includes each element claimed although not necessarily in a single prior art reference, with the only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art being the lack of the actual combination of the elements in a single prior art reference. In combination Ghanmi et al. performs the same function as it does separately of determining falsity of documents, and Sicre et al. performs the same function as it does separately of using and determining older and newer versions of residence cards.
Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, and that in combination, each element merely performed the same function as it does separately. The results of the combination would have been predictable and resulted in the verification to determine falsity comprising using and determining older and newer versions of residence cards.
Therefore, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 7, Ghanmi et al. disclose the process of claim 1.
Ghanmi et al. fail to teach wherein the verification step is a step of evaluation of the document based on the image, wherein the pre-set sensitive area of the image concerns parts of the image that refer to international rules of the document.
Sicre et al. disclose wherein the verification step is a step of evaluation of the document based on the image, wherein the pre-set sensitive area of the image concerns parts of the image that refer to international rules of the document (See section 4 Experiments, subsection 4.1 Datasets explains that passports are used, which have preset areas that concern parts of the image that refer to international rules of the document.).
Hence the prior art includes each element claimed although not necessarily in a single prior art reference, with the only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art being the lack of the actual combination of the elements in a single prior art reference. In combination Ghanmi et al. performs the same function as it does separately of determining falsity of documents, and Sicre et al. performs the same function as it does separately of identifying passports.
Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, and that in combination, each element merely performed the same function as it does separately. The results of the combination would have been predictable and resulted in the verification to determine falsity comprising identifying passports.
Therefore, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 8 may be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Potash et al. (US 2016/0148039) disclose of systems and methods of verifying an authenticated document biosignature.
Hall et al. (US 2019/0026579) disclose of identifying and extracting values of data fields from images of documents.
Zheng et al. (US 10,783,369) disclose a document verification system, device, and method using a classification model.
Lawrence et al. (US 2022/0216993) disclose a document verification system.
Pribble et al. (US 2022/0414370) disclose of validating identification documents.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEPHEN G SHERMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-2941. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:00am - 4pm ET.
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, AMR AWAD can be reached at (571)272-7764. 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.
/STEPHEN G SHERMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2621
29 July 2026
Prosecution Insights