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 .
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 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.
DETAILED ACTION
This office action has been issued in response to arguments/amendments filed on 04/27/2026. Claim 14 is cancelled. Claim 21 is newly added. Claims 1-13 and 15-21 are presented for examination.
Response to Arguments
1. Applicant’s arguments/amendments regarding the rejection of claims 1-13 and 15-21, filed on 04/27/2026 as recited in pages 8-13, have been fully considered but arguments are moot because newly added limitation to the claim (s) requires a new ground of rejection necessitated by amendments.
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.
1. Claims 1, 4, 8, 11, 15, 18, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yin et al. (US Patent No. 10,846,388, hereinafter “Yin”).
Regarding claim 1, Yin does disclose, a method for liveness detection, comprising: acquiring real-time data of a user (Yin, (col. 2 line 67 - col. 3 lines 1-2), the user can view an eye action of the user in real time in the virtual reality environment in a process of collecting the eye physiological feature); establishing a binding relationship between the user and a model, wherein orientation of the model is determined based on the data after the binding relationship is established (Yin, (col. 7 lines 48-50), … the virtual eye model can simulate the eye action of the user in real time when the user's eye moves; (col. 6 lines 53-61), the user can register the eye print feature and the iris feature in advance by using the VR terminal device and establish a binding relationship between the account information of the user and each of the eye print feature and the iris feature of the user by using the VR terminal device, as described above, and in addition, the user can customize an associated user by using the VR client device, and bind the eye print feature and the iris feature of the associated user to the user identifier of the user); controlling movement of a control according to a variation of the orientation of the model, and acquiring first information of the control according to a preset time interval during the movement (Yin, (col. 5 lines 23-29), the user can control motion of a visual focus in an interaction way such as a three-dimensional gesture, a head posture, or eyeball movement (eye movement tracking) or …, keep a visual focus in an area where the virtual element is located, and select the virtual element, to trigger the previous target service; (col. 19 lines 35-44), where a mobile device, can carry out transactions i…., for …, …. authorizing …. . Such transactions may be in real time such that an action and a response are temporally proximate; for example an individual perceives the action and the response occurring substantially simultaneously, the time difference for a response following the individual's action is less than 1 millisecond (ms) or less than 1 second (s)); and performing liveness detection according to the first information, to obtain a detection result of the user (Yin, (col. 9 lines 22-26), the virtual model simulates a real-time eye action of the user, the VR client device can directly perform liveness detection based on the output virtual eye model on the user from which an eye physiological feature is collected).
Regarding claim 4, Yin further discloses, the method according to claim 1, wherein before the controlling the movement of the control according to the variation of the orientation of the model, and the acquiring the first information of the control according to the preset time interval during the movement (Yin, (col. 5 lines 23-29), the user can control motion of a visual focus in an interaction way such as a three-dimensional gesture, a head posture, or eyeball movement (eye movement tracking) or …, keep a visual focus in an area where the virtual element is located, and select the virtual element, to trigger the previous target service; (col. 19 lines 35-44), where a mobile device, can carry out transactions i…., for …, …. authorizing …. . Such transactions may be in real time such that an action and a response are temporally proximate; for example an individual perceives the action and the response occurring substantially simultaneously, the time difference for a response following the individual's action is less than 1 millisecond (ms) or less than 1 second (s)), the method further comprises: displaying second information in a display area of a user terminal, wherein the second information is used to guide the user to control the movement of the control into a first area (Yin, (col. 13 lines 63-65), the user can control a position of a visual focus in a VR environment in a natural interaction way such as eyeball rotation); the performing the liveness detection according to the first information, to obtain the detection result of the user comprises: under a circumstance that lastly acquired first information of the control is located in the first area, performing the liveness detection according to the first information, to obtain the detection result of the user (Yin, (col. 9 lines 22-26), the virtual model simulates a real-time eye action of the user, the VR client device can directly perform liveness detection based on the output virtual eye model on the user from which an eye physiological feature is collected).
Regarding claim 8, the substance of the claimed invention is similar to that of claim 1. Accordingly, this claim is rejected under the same rationale.
Regarding claim 11, the substance of the claimed invention is similar to that of claim 4. Accordingly, this claim is rejected under the same rationale.
Regarding claim 15, the substance of the claimed invention is similar to that of claim 1. Accordingly, this claim is rejected under the same rationale.
Regarding claim 18, the substance of the claimed invention is similar to that of claim 4. Accordingly, this claim is rejected under the same rationale.
Regarding claim 21, Yin further discloses, the method according to claim 1, wherein orientation of the user is consistent with the orientation of the model during movement of the user (Yin, (col. 7 lines 48-50), … the virtual eye model can simulate the eye action of the user in real time when the user's eye moves).
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.
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.
2. Claims 2-3, 5-7, 9-10, 12-13, 16-17, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yin et al. (US Patent No. 10,846,388, hereinafter “Yin”) in view of Komogortsev et al. (US Pub No. 2013/0336547, hereinafter “Komogortsev”).
Regarding claim 2, Yin does disclose, the method according to claim 1, wherein the controlling the movement of the control according to the variation of the orientation of the model, and the acquiring the first information of the control according to the preset time interval during the movement (Yin, (col. 5 lines 23-29), the user can control motion of a visual focus in an interaction way such as a three-dimensional gesture, a head posture, or eyeball movement (eye movement tracking) or …, keep a visual focus in an area where the virtual element is located, and select the virtual element, to trigger the previous target service; (col. 19 lines 35-44), where a mobile device, can carry out transactions i…., for …, …. authorizing …. . Such transactions may be in real time such that an action and a response are temporally proximate; for example an individual perceives the action and the response occurring substantially simultaneously, the time difference for a response following the individual's action is less than 1 millisecond (ms) or less than 1 second (s)).
Yin does not explicitly disclose but the analogous art Komogortsev does discloses, performing Euclidean distance transform processing according to the variation of the orientation of the model, to obtain an offset of the control; and controlling the movement of the control according to the offset of the control (Komogortsev, (para. [0082]), Scanpath length is indicative of the efficiency of visual search, and may be considered as a candidate biometric feature under the assumption that visual search is dependent on the subject's familiarity with similar patterns/content. Scanpath length may be measured as the sum of absolute distances between the vectorial centroid of fixation points, where the vectorial centroid was defined as the Euclidean norm of the horizontal and vertical centroid positions).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Yin by including performing Euclidean distance transform processing taught by Komogortsev for the advantage of preventing a spoofing attack involves presenting an accurate mechanical replica of the human eye is presented to the sensor (Komogortsev, (para. [0013])).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Yin-Komogortsev does disclose, the method according to claim 1, wherein the performing the liveness detection according to the first information, to obtain the detection result of the user comprises: performing trajectory judgment, speed judgment and acceleration judgment according to the first information, to obtain corresponding judgment results; generating, according to the judgment results, a score of the user; and determining the detection result of the user according to the score and a preset threshold (Komogortsev, (para. [0111), Eye movement classification module 302 classifies the eye position signal 304 into fixations and saccades. A sequence of classified saccades' trajectories is sent to the oculomotor plant mathematical model (OPMM) 306; (para. [0112, 0125, 0054, 0204]), OPMM 306 may generate simulated saccades' trajectories based on the default OPC values that are grouped into a vector with the purpose of matching the simulated trajectories with the recorded ones. Each individual saccade may be matched independently of any other saccade. Both classified and simulated trajectories for each saccade may be sent to error function module 308. Error function module 308 may compute error between the trajectories. The error result may trigger the OPC estimation module 310 to optimize the values inside of the OPC vector minimizing the error between each pair of recorded and simulated saccades).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Yin-Komogortsev does disclose, the method according to claim 4, wherein the display area of the user terminal is pre-divided into a first partition and a second partition, the first partition comprises a plurality of second areas, and the second partition comprises a plurality of second areas, and a preset spacing distance exists between the first partition and the second partition; an initial position of the control is located in one of the first partition and the second partition, and the first area is located in the other one of the first partition and the second partition (Komogortsev, (para. [0101, 0174-0175]), scanpath_fix characteristics are compared via pairwise distances between the centroids representing positions of fixations at 248. In comparing two scanpaths, the Euclidean pairwise distance may be calculated between the centroid positions of fixations. Following this, a tally may be made of the total number of fixation points in each set that could be matched to within 1.degree. of at least one point in the opposing set. The similarity of scanpaths may be assessed by the proportion of tallied fixation points to the total number of fixation points to produce a similarity score similar to those generated for the various eye movement metrics).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Yin-Komogortsev does disclose, the method according to claim 1, wherein the data comprises a first position in a display area corresponding to a first point of the user and a second position in the display area corresponding to a second point of the user; the establishing the binding relationship between the user and the model comprises: establishing the binding relationship between the user and the model under a circumstance that a face of the user is determined to be of bilateral symmetry according to the data, and the first position and the second position are located in a preset area of the display area (Komogortsev, (para. [0053, 0060, 0082, 0114]), eye positional signal information is acquired. Raw eye movement data produced during a recording is supplied to an eye movement classification module at 212. In some embodiments, an eye-tracker sends the recorded eye gaze trace to an eye movement classification algorithm at 212 after visual information employed for the authentication is presented to a user. An eye movement classification algorithm may extract fixations and saccades from the signal. The extracted saccades' trajectories may be supplied to the mathematical model of the oculomotor plant 214 for the purpose of simulating the exact same trajectories).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Yin-Komogortsev does disclose, the method according to claim 5, wherein the data comprises a third position in the display area of the user terminal corresponding to a third point; the establishing the binding relationship between the user and the model comprises: establishing the binding relationship between the user and the model under a circumstance that the third position and the initial position of the control are located in a same second area (Komogortsev, (para. [0169), CEM (including COB) and OPC eye movement metrics are estimated. CEM related metrics may include fixation count, average fixation duration, average vectorial average vertical saccade amplitude, average vectorial saccade velocity, average vectorial saccade peak velocity, velocity waveform (Q), COB related metrics--undershot/overshoot, corrected undershoot/overshoot, multi-corrected undershoot/overshoot, dynamic, compound, express saccades, scanpath length, scanpath area, regions of interest, inflection count, and slope coefficients of the amplitude-duration and main sequence relationships; (para. [0101]), where the similarity of scanpaths may be assessed by the proportion of tallied fixation points to the total number of fixation points to produce a similarity score similar to those generated for the various eye movement metrics).
Regarding claim 9, the substance of the claimed invention is similar to that of claim 2. Accordingly, this claim is rejected under the same rationale.
Regarding claim 10, the substance of the claimed invention is similar to that of claim 3. Accordingly, this claim is rejected under the same rationale.
Regarding claim 12, the substance of the claimed invention is similar to that of claim 5. Accordingly, this claim is rejected under the same rationale.
Regarding claim 13, the substance of the claimed invention is similar to that of claim 6. Accordingly, this claim is rejected under the same rationale.
Cancel claim 14.
Regarding claim 16, the substance of the claimed invention is similar to that of claim 2. Accordingly, this claim is rejected under the same rationale.
Regarding claim 17, the substance of the claimed invention is similar to that of claim 3. Accordingly, this claim is rejected under the same rationale.
Regarding claim 19, the substance of the claimed invention is similar to that of claim 5. Accordingly, this claim is rejected under the same rationale.
Regarding claim 20, the substance of the claimed invention is similar to that of claim 6. Accordingly, this claim is rejected under the same rationale.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MORSHED MEHEDI whose telephone number is (571) 270-7640. The examiner can normally be reached on M - F, 8:00 am to 4:00 pm EST. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Linglan Edwards can be reach on (571) 270-5440. The fax 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 their 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.
/MORSHED MEHEDI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2408
Prosecution Insights