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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-20 are pending in this application.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 9/17/2024 fails to comply with the provisions
of 37 CFR 1.97, 1.98 and MPEP § 609 because some of the cited document(s) do not have
accompanying dates(please see attached 1449 for the specific documents). It has been placed in
the application file, but some of the information referred to therein has not been considered as to
the merits. Applicant is advised that the date of any re-submission of any item of information
contained in this information disclosure statement or the submission of any missing element(s)
will be date of submission for purposes of determining compliance with the requirements based
on the time of filing the statement, including all certification requirements for statements under
37 CFR 1.97(e). See MPEP § 609.05(a).
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-20 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No.12,124,575. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other (see table below).
Instant Application
U.S. Patent No. 12,124,575
Claim 1: A device, comprising:
a processing system including a processor; and
a memory that stores executable instructions that, when executed by the processing system, facilitate performance of operations, the operations comprising:
capturing images generated by invoking a fiducial on the device; detecting an anomaly in the images based on a context when the fiducial is invoked; and responsive to the detecting the anomaly, providing a notification of the anomaly.
Claim 1: A device, comprising:
a processing system including a processor; and
a memory that stores executable instructions that, when executed by the processing system, facilitate performance of operations, the operations comprising:
determining a context of a fiducial when the fiducial is invoked on a user device; capturing images generated by invoking the fiducial;
detecting an anomaly in the images based on the context; and
responsive to the detecting the anomaly, providing a notification of the anomaly.
Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both are directed to capturing images generated by invoking the fiducial and detecting an anomaly in the images based on the context; and only differing in that the claims of '575 patent explicitly recite determining a context of a fiducial when the fiducial is invoked on a user device. Thus, the claims of the ‘575 patent are rendered as obvious variants of the instant claims.
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-7,9,11-16,18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Wo et al(US 2022/0084174).
Claim 1: Wo disclose a processing system including a processor and a memory that stores executable instructions executed by the processing system in (fig.1,#120-124). Wo disclose capturing images generated by invoking a fiducial on the device in (page 2[0021]: user system captures/processes images where perspective transformation of an images may be performed using the located fiducial points on the images for reference. For example the four fiducial points located in the step maybe employed in conjunction with the getPerspectiveTransform function for the OpenCV library to perform perspective transformation on the gold images and the target images). Wo disclose detecting an anomaly in the images based on the context when the fiducial is invoked and responsive to the detecting the anomaly, providing a notification of the anomaly in (Fig.2 and page 4[0045]:system detects where a white section of pixels is an anomalous section that identifies a location of an unauthorized modification. The anomalous section of pixels is marked with a marking which is superimposed on the target image and issues alert in fig.2#212).
Claim 2: Wo disclose notification comprises highlighting the anomaly on a display of the user device in (fig.2 and fig.3[0027]).
Claim 3: Wo disclose notification comprises denoting a probability of authenticity of each object on the display in (page 3[0027[).
Claim 4: Wo disclose notification comprises a push notification sent to the user device in (page 3[0027]).
Claim 5: Wo disclose operations further comprise limiting an application on the use device responsive to detecting the anomaly in (page 2[0016-0017]).
Claim 6: Wo disclose limiting connectivity of the user device with the fiducial in (page 4[0044]).
Claim 7: Wo disclose ending an application on the user device associate with the fiducial in (page 3[0027-0028]).
Claim 9: Wo disclose analyzing a background in the images as well as an actor in the images to detect the anomaly in (page 3[003300035]).
Claim 11: Wo disclose processing system comprises a plurality of processors operating in a distributed computing environment to detect the anomaly between the images wherein the images are frame of a video in (page 1[0015]).
Claim 12: Wo disclose detecting an anomaly in images generated by a fiducial when the fiducial is launched by a user device based on the context and responsive to the detecting the anomaly, providing a notification of the anomaly to the user device in (Fig.2 and page 4[0045]:system detects where a white section of pixels is an anomalous section that identifies a location of an unauthorized modification. The anomalous section of pixels is marked with a marking which is superimposed on the target image and issue alert in fig.2#212).
Claim 13: Wo disclose notification comprises highlighting the anomaly on a display of the user device in (fig.2 and fig.3[0027]).
Claim 14: Wo disclose notification comprises denoting a probability of authenticity of each object on the display in (page 3[0027[).
Claim 15: Wo disclose notification comprises a push notification sent to the user device in (page 3[0027]).
Claim 16: Wo disclose operations further comprise limiting an application on the use device responsive to detecting the anomaly in (page 2[0016-0017]).
Claim 18: Wo disclose processing system comprises a plurality of processors operating in a distributed computing environment in (page 1[0015]).
Claim 19: Wo disclose detecting by a processing system comprising a processor, an anomaly in images generated by a user device launching a fiducial based on a context of the launching and responsive to the detecting the anomaly, sending, by the processing system a notification of the anomaly to the user device in (Fig.2 and page 4[0045]:system detects where a white section of pixels is an anomalous section that identifies a location of an unauthorized modification. The anomalous section of pixels is marked with a marking which is superimposed on the target image and issue alert in fig.2#212).
Claim 20: Wo disclose notification comprises highlighting the anomaly on a display of the user device in (fig.2 and fig.3[0027]).
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.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wo et al(US 2022/0084174) in view of Ribnick et al(US 2013/0202200).
Claim 8: Wo disclose comparing the context with information stored in a model repository but does not specifically disclose context comprises machine learning. Ribnick disclose this limitation in (pages 4-5[0043]). It would have been obvious to person of ordinary skill in the art at the time invention was made to employ machine learning as taught in Ribnick with system of Wo in order to accurately identify trends and patterns for fraud activities thus enhancing overall system security against malicious attempts by the intruders.
Claim(s) 10,17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wo et al(US 2022/0084174) in view of Stone et al(US 2014/0063237).
Claim 10: Wo does not specifically disclose facial recognition and motion characteristic to detect the anomaly. Stone disclose this limitation in (page 2[0018]). It would have been obvious to person of ordinary skill in the art at the time invention was made to employ facial recognition and motion sensor as taught in Stone with system of Wo in order to ensure accurate identity verification and fraud prevention to authenticate and verify human faces to improve overall system security.
Claim 17: Wo disclose comparing the context with information stored in a model repository but does not specifically disclose context comprises machine learning. Ribnick disclose this limitation in (pages 4-5[0043]). It would have been obvious to person of ordinary skill in the art at the time invention was made to employ machine learning as taught in Ribnick with system of Wo in order to accurately identify trends and patterns for fraud activities thus enhancing overall system security against malicious attempts by the intruders.
USPTO Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HOSUK SONG whose telephone number is (571)272-3857. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri: 7:30AM-5:00PM.
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, Joseph Hirl can be reached at 571-272-3685. 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.
/HOSUK SONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2435
Prosecution Insights