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
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in India on 3 October 2024. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the 202441074689 application as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “adoptive color pattern” must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Paragraph [0059] of the PGPUB, which corresponds to paragraph [0053] of the detailed disclosure, calls 208 in Figure 2 a “communication interface” however, in Figure 2, 208 is labeled as “network interface” and is referred in as “network interface 208” in the other parts of the specification. Thus, “communications interface” should be changed to “network interface” in this paragraph.
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 1-20 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.
Independent claims 1, 13 and 20 each disclose of an “adoptive color pattern.” However, the claimed “adoptive color pattern” is not described in enough detail in the specification for one of ordinary skill in the art to be able to understand exactly what constitutes the “adoptive color pattern” thus leading to unclarity of the claims.
In the specification:
Paragraph [0054] of the PGPUB (paragraph [0048] of the detailed disclosure), merely states that the pattern “may include a set of generated colors.”
Paragraph [0078] of the PGPUB (paragraph [0072] of the detailed disclosure), merely states that the pattern is generated at step 308.
Paragraph [0115] of the PGPUB (paragraph [] of the detailed disclosure), merely states the use of ML model 202A.
Paragraph [0079] of the PGPUB (paragraph [0073] of the detailed disclosure), give the most detail stating that the “adoptive color pattern may include a set of generated colors complementary to the color composition of the iris 408…complementary colors that may provide a strongest contrast in the reflections…the adoptive color pattern may include different patterns along with the set of generated colors.” However, the adoptive color pattern is not shown in the drawings, nor does the detailed disclosure provide enough description to provide clear metes and bounds of the claimed adoptive color pattern as to the actual constitution of the pattern. For example, the lack of description leads to many questions about the claimed adoptive color pattern. What does the pattern look like? e.g. are the different colors provided to gradually change in a fading manner? Is one half one color and the other half another color? Is one color the background and the other provided in circles or squares or triangles, etc.? Is it a spiral pattern? Is the pattern displayed temporally? Where exactly is the pattern placed and/or not placed in order for it to be detected, etc.? Therefore, the lack of description leads to much ambiguity within the claims, which leads to the claims being indefinite.
Claims 2-12 and 14-19 are rejected due to their dependency from claims 1 and 13, respectively.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-20 would be allowable if rewritten or amended 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
In the closest prior art:
Tang et al. ("Face Flashing: a Secure Liveness Detection Protocol based on Light Reflections") disclose, in Section IV. Face Flashing, subsection A. Protocol Processes, Step 3: Presentation of a challenge, that a picture is displayed on a screen, i.e. a “pattern”, and in Step 4: Collection of response, that the light from the “pattern” that is reflected off the user’s face is detected. Then in Section IV. Face Flashing, subsection B. Key Techniques, 4.) Face Verification, it is merely described that the results are processed and fed into a neural network to determine liveness. Tang et al. fail to teach of making the pattern based on the color composition of an iris if a user and also fails to teach of determining a rate of change of the pattern to calculate a liveness score.
Tussy et al. (WO 2021/030634 A1) disclose in paragraph [0014]: “… mobile device may output objects, colors, or patterns on the display screen to be detected during the imaging. The predetermined object or pattern may be a unique one-dimensional or two-dimensional barcode. For example, a QR code (two-dimensional barcode) may be displayed on the screen and reflected off the user’s eye. If the QR code is detected in the image, then the person may be authenticated.” However, Tussy et al. fail to teach of making the pattern based on the color composition of an iris if a user and also fails to teach of determining a rate of change of the pattern to calculate a liveness score.
Martin (WO 2016/109841 A1) disclose in paragraph [0103], for example, of displaying a changing pattern and then detecting the reflection from the user’s eyes and determining liveness based on the changes in the detected reflection matching the changes in the displayed pattern. However, Martin fails to teach of making the pattern based on the color composition of an iris if a user and also fails to teach of determining a rate of change of the pattern to calculate a liveness score.
Law et al. (US 2014/0169642) disclose in paragraph [0020], for example, of displaying a pattern and then detecting the reflection from the user’s eyes and determining liveness based on the reflections being within a ROI. However, Law et al. fail to teach of making the pattern based on the color composition of an iris if a user and also fails to teach of determining a rate of change of the pattern to calculate a liveness score.
Feng et al. (US 2016/0019420) disclose generally of using iris detection to calculate a liveness sore based on reflectance characteristics, where fake irises can be detected by comparing a ratio of the imaged iris to sclera reflectance values at different wavelengths of the spectrum to an expected ratio value (See Figure 2 and paragraph [0043]). However, Feng et al. fail to teach of making the pattern based on the color composition of an iris if a user and also fails to teach of determining a rate of change of the pattern to calculate a liveness score.
Benini et al. (US 2018/0181794) disclose of displaying a solid color image or patterned image (See paragraph [0072]: “a patterned black and white image, or a patterned color image” and Figure 6, step 608.) in the display of a mobile device and detecting the reflection in the iris of the user (See Figure 2C, for example, and paragraph [0075], and Figure 6, step 612). A liveness determination is then made in step 620 of Figure 6, where it is described in paragraphs [0075]-[0077]. However, Benini et al. fail to teach of making the pattern based on the color composition of an iris if a user and also fails to teach of determining a rate of change of the pattern to calculate a liveness score.
Han et al. (US 2019/0228248) disclose of using both IR and color imaging to determine liveness by detecting reflection of a displayed “pattern” from the user’ face (Figure 5A and paragraph [0102], for example.). Figure 7A and paragraph [0109] then explain that the detected images are sent through a neural network to determine liveness. However, Han et al. fail to teach of making the pattern based on the color composition of an iris if a user and also fails to teach of determining a rate of change of the pattern to calculate a liveness score.
Park et al. (US 2019/0251380) disclose of using both IR and color imaging to determine liveness by detecting reflection of a displayed “pattern” from the user’ face (Paragraph [0088].). However, Park et al. fail to teach of making the pattern based on the color composition of an iris if a user and also fails to teach of determining a rate of change of the pattern to calculate a liveness score.
However, none of the closest prior art, even in combination, disclose of determin(ing) a rate of change of pattern associated with the generated adoptive color pattern and the reflected color pattern to calculate a liveness score, as claimed.
Conclusion
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
30 July 2026
Prosecution Insights