DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Applicant(s) Response to Office Action
The response filed on 7/24/2026 has been entered and made of record.
Response to Amendment/Remarks
Claims 3 have been amended. Claims 1-3 remain pending in the application.
Applicant's amendments overcome the claim objection.
Examiner thanks applicant for their thoughtful remarks which have been fully considered. Applicant’s remarks are not persuasive. Applicant defines in great detail, citations of Wyss which were not relied upon. In such cases, applicant is applying piecemeal analysis. Further, applicant is arguing features not taught in the references which are not claimed. Claim 1 refers to a “partial fingerprint”. While the claims are discussing real biometrics, fingerprint here is not referring to actual fingerprints. In this case, the broadest reasonable interpretation for “partial fingerprint” is an approximation of a biometric. Wyss, ¶ 37 teaches “selected facial features”. There is no cryptographic or hashing operations occurring here. Later, the claim recites hashes which arise from broadly claimed language about assembling information and using a similarity measure. Wyss teaches comparison of biometric approximation information and Alattar incorporates teaching on hashing which are broadly stated in the claim.
MPEP 2141 “Examination Guidelines for Determining Obviousness Under 35 U.S.C. 103” expresses that “Prior art is not limited just to the references being applied, but includes the understanding of one of ordinary skill in the art. The prior art reference (or references when combined) need not teach or suggest all the claim limitations". Within this chapter regarding a person of ordinary skill, the MPEP states, “A person of ordinary skill in the art is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton”. KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1397 (2007). Finally, MPEP 2141.03 “Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art” states, “The person of ordinary skill in the art is a hypothetical person who is presumed to have known the relevant art at the time of the invention”. Accordingly, given the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claimed terminology, the rejection is maintained.
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.
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wyss (US 2021/0320801 A1), in view of Alattar (US 2024/0362738 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Wyss teaches:
“A method for the computation of a cryptographic hash, the method comprising: detecting and localizing a person’s face in an input image sequence (Wyss, ¶ 37, 41, 43 and 45 teach facial recognition being applied to a live feed of a person’s face); detecting the person’s voice in an input (Wyss, ¶ 36, 39, 41, 43 and 45 teaches detecting a person’s voice in a live feed); transforming the detected person’s face into a partial fingerprint (Wyss, ¶ 37, 39, 43, 49, and 53 teaches taking the sequence of images and performing facial analysis to determine components of the face for the various images in the sequence); transforming the detected person’s voice into a partial fingerprint (Wyss, ¶ 36, 39, 43, 50 and 52 teaches capturing the voice and voice printing the portions of the temporal recording of the voice); and comparing partial face fingerprints and partial voice fingerprints by computing a similarity measure (Wysss, ¶ 47-53 teaches bimodal recognition that utilizes fingerprint information from audio and video to arrive at a confidence level greater than a threshold, thus authenticating the information)”.
Wyss does not, but in related art Alattar teaches detecting in an “input media file (Alattar, ¶ 22-23, 44-45, 47-48 teaches processing the audio track of a multimedia file)”;
comparing two complete hashes (Alattar, ¶ 47-50, teaches hashing the audio and video of a video and comparing to verified signatures to determine authenticity).
Before applicant’s earliest effective filing it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Wyss and Alattar, to modify the audio/video authentication system of Wyss to include the method of authenticating media files using hashing of audio and video as taught in Alattar. The motivation to do so would be, as stated by Alattar, ¶ 50-51 would be to prevent deep fakes. Further, the motivation constitutes applying a known technique to known devices and/or methods ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wyss in view of Alattar in view of Ra (US 2020/0211162 A1).
Regarding claim 2, Wyss and Alattar teaches:
“The method of claim 1 (Wyss and Alattar teaches the limitations of the parent claims as discussed above).
Wyss and Alattar do not, but in related art, Ra teaches:
“wherein detecting and localizing a person’s face in an input image sequence includes computation of an averaged facial representation of the person’s face (Ra, ¶ 30 teaches using a model which converted a face into a representation based on the average face characteristics over several frames)”.
Before applicant’s earliest effective filing it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Wyss, Alattar, and Ra, to modify the audio/video authentication system of Wyss and Alattar to include the method of averaging facial traits as taught in Goel. The motivation to do so constitutes applying a known technique to known devices and/or methods ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wyss in view of Alattar in view of Goel (US 2025/0005123 A1).
Regarding claim 3, Wyss and Alattar teaches:
“The method of claim 1 (Wyss and Alattar teaches the limitations of the parent claims as discussed above).
Wyss and Alattar do not, but in related art, Goel teaches:
“wherein detecting the person’s voice in an input multimedia file includes computation of an averaged voice representation of the person’s voice (Goel, ¶ 12 and 22 teaches using a model which converted a voice into a representation based on the average voice characteristics)”.
Before applicant’s earliest effective filing it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Wyss, Alattar, and Goel, to modify the audio/video authentication system of Wyss and Alattar to include the method of averaging voice traits as taught in Goel. The motivation to do so constitutes applying a known technique to known devices and/or methods ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
Conclusion
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 STEPHEN T GUNDRY whose telephone number is (571)270-0507. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30AM-5PM (EST).
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, Amir Mehrmanesh can be reached at (571) 270-3351. 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 T GUNDRY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2435
Prosecution Insights