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 .
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.
Claims 1-4 and 6-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mayer et al (US Pub. 2019/0043180) in view of Kuklinski et al (US Pub. 2017/0132866).
With respect to claim 1, Mayer discloses A computer-implemented method for verifying an image, the method comprising:
receiving a first image of a document, (see figure 1A, 110A a first image);
segmenting the first image into a plurality of segments, wherein the plurality of segments include a first segment with an imperfection and a second segment without the imperfection, (see figure 1A, 110A first image with the glare on a portion of the image 112A, and the other portions of the image without any glare “without the imperfection”, also in paragraph 0041, capture device can extract different sets of document features “segmenting”);
receiving a second image of the document including the first segment without the imperfection, (see figure 1A, 110B second image without the glare on the same position “the first portion of the feature without the imperfection”);
creating a composite image of the document by aligning spatial domains for the first segment from the second image with spatial domains for the second segment from the first image, (see figure 1A, 110C for the final image without the glare and paragraph 0041, …capture device can generate the third image… features extracted from first and second image “composite image”; and see figure 3A-C, and paragraph 0055, the capture device …reconstructed image by re-mapping second image so that the document …aligns with the document shown in the buffer for the reconstructed image…);
and
However, Mayer fails to explicitly disclose determining that a color or texture of words in the first segment of the composite image is consistent with a color or texture of words in the second segment of the composite image to, as claimed.
Kuklinski teaches determining that a color or texture of words in the first segment of the composite image is consistent with a color or texture of words in the second segment of the composite image, (see figures 12-15, paragraph 0161-0165, wherein … an image of the ID and dividing the image into sub-regions in the form of a grid of Feature Regions (FRs)… properties, such as luminance, 1202, standard deviation (SD), 1203, and hue, 1204, can be calculated for each sample… In order to evaluate the consistency of the feature and establish the range of values that is to be expected for each property, statistics are calculated… However, not all FRs are best characterized by a single measurement type, 1503. Each FR has multiple measurements applied that consider such regional properties as brightness, color, line content, shading, and the statistical properties of any of these properties over the region, 1504…), as claimed.
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skilled in the art at the effective date of invention to combine the two references as they are analogous because they are solving similar problem of stitching two images to verify them using image analysis. Teachings of Kuklinski to evaluate the composite image of an ID by comparing various segments for the consistency using the various properties can be incorporated into Mayers system (see figure 1A, numerical 110C, composite image), for suggestion, and modifying the system yields a better document authentication system, for motivation.
With respect to claim 2, combination of Mayer and Kuklinski further discloses receiving, based on the determining, a comparison between the aligned spatial domains of the composite image and an authentic image of the document to further verify the authenticity of the document. (see Mayer paragraph 0055, the capture device …reconstructed image by re-mapping second image so that the document …aligns with the document shown in the buffer for the reconstructed image…; and paragraph 0031, wherein, …final digital image of the ID document can be compared to an image of a person captured at the time of authentication.…), as claimed.
With respect to claim 3, combination of Mayer and Kuklinski further discloses restarting an image capture process when the color or the texture of words in the first segment is inconsistent with the color or the texture of words in the second segment in the composite image, (see Mayer paragraph 0039, wherein, ….If the capture device 102 determines that features do not match “feature in the composite image is inconsistent” …the capture device 102 can determine further images of the document need to be captured “restarting an image capture process”…), as claimed.
With respect to claim 4, combination of Mayer and Kuklinski further discloses identifying one or more characteristics of the first and second images of the document, wherein the one or more characteristics include an edge of the document, a pixel in the first image and the second image of the document, or the imperfection in the first image, (see Mayer paragraph 0055, portions of the pixels corresponds to the same coordinates of the pixels of the document for aligning the images); and determining the spatial domains for the first segment from the second image and the spatial domains for the second segment from the first image based on the one or more characteristics, (see Mayer figure 3A-C, and paragraph 0055, the capture device …reconstructed image by re-mapping second image so that the document …aligns with the document shown in the buffer for the reconstructed image…), as claimed.
With respect to claim 6, combination of Mayer and Kuklinski further discloses wherein the segment comprises a security feature or a non-security feature, (see Mayer figure 1B, numerical 152 for various features), as claimed.
With respect to claim 7, combination of Mayer and Kuklinski further discloses wherein the plurality of segments are determined based on at least one of: a number of features in the document, a type of each of the features in the document, and a location of each of the features in the document. (see Mayer figure 1B, 152 various feature “number of features”), as claimed.
With respect to claim 8, combination of Mayer and Kuklinski further discloses wherein the imperfection is a glare, a shadow, or a lack of resolution, (see Mayer figure 1A, numerical 112A glare), as claimed.
With respect to claim 9, combination of Mayer and Kuklinski further discloses receiving the first image and the second image from a camera of a user device, (see Mayer figure 1A, numerical 102A, camera), as claimed.
With respect to claim 10, combination of Mayer and Kuklinski further discloses wherein the document is one of: a driver’s license, identification card, passport, birth certificate, or credit card, (see Mayer figure 1A, numerical 110A, drivers license), as claimed.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mayer et al (US Pub. 2019/0043180) in view of Kuklinski et al (US Pub. 2017/0132866) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Azanza Ladron et al (US Pub. 2019/0251774) and Borchers et al (US 6,289,107).
With respect to claim 5, combination of Mayer and Kuklinski discloses all the elements as claimed and as rejected in claim 1 above.
However, they fail to disclose determining whether an amount of time between a first timestamp of the first image and a second timestamp of the second image exceeds a predetermined threshold; and restarting an image capture process when the amount of time between the first timestamp of the first image and the second timestamp of the second image exceeds the predetermined threshold, as claimed.
Azanza Ladron teaches determining whether an amount of time between a first timestamp of the first image and a second timestamp of the second image exceeds a predetermined threshold, (see paragraph 0183, wherein, …at least wo photos may be taken ….separated by a random time lapse…, and paragraph 0184, wherein, …photos may be almost simultaneously taken “an amount of time between a first timestamp of the first image and a second timestamp of the second image exceeds a predetermined threshold”, and this is done for the verification of the document), as claimed.
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skilled in the art at the effective date of invention to combine the references as they are analogous because they are solving similar problem of ID imaging. The teaching of Azanza Ladron to use two images of the document taken simultaneously can be incorporated in to Mayer’s system as suggested in figure 1A, taking two images of Mayer, … identification documents .. may be used to verify…, (for suggestion) and modification to the system yields a automatic classification system (see Azanza Ladron paragraph 0001) for motivation.
And, Borchers teaches restart the capturing of the image “restarting an image capture” if the ratio is not less than 1 “exceeding threshold” (see col. 12 lines 26-27), as claimed.
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skilled in the art at the effective date of invention to combine the references as they are analogous because they are solving similar problem of identifying objects using image analysis. The teaching of Borchers to restart capturing the images depending on a threshold can be incorporated in to Mayer, Kuklinski and Azanza Ladron system as suggested in figure 1A, taking images of Mayer, … identification documents .. may be used to verify…, (for suggestion) and modification to the system yields a system that makes sure to obtain the best images for the ID documents in order to accurately authenticate the documents, for motivation.
Claims 11-16 are rejected for the same reasons as set forth in the rejections of claim 1, 2, 3, 8, 10 and 9, because claims 11-16 are claiming subject matter of similar scope as claimed in claims 1, 2, 3, 8, 10 and 9 respectively.
Claims 17-20 are rejected for the same reasons as set forth in the rejections of claim 1-4, because claims 17-20 are claiming subject matter of similar scope as claimed in claims 1-4 respectively.
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 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,175,780. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims in the instant application are of similar version of the patented claims. Substantially all claimed elements of claims 1-20 in the instant application are contained in claims 1-20 of U. S. Patent No. 12,175,780. It has been held that a generic invention is anticipated by the species. MPEP 804(I)(B) and In re Goodman, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VIKKRAM BALI whose telephone number is (571)272-7415. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:00AM-3:00PM.
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, Gregory Morse can be reached at 571-272-3838. 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.
/VIKKRAM BALI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2663
Prosecution Insights