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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This is in response to the communication filed on 12/20/2024. Claims 1-22 are pending in the application. Claims 1-22 are rejected.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 04/02/2025, 05/19/2025, 07/01/2025, 04/23/2026 and 06/03/2026 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
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.
Claims 9-11 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2015/0128240 A1 (hereinafter Richards et al. )
Regarding claim 9, Richards et al. teaches an authentication system to verify a user’s identity comprising:
a data collection device (note figure 2.210 and 2.220: request/ verification handlers; para. [0066], [0079]: authenticator device) having a processor and memory (note figure 1B: processor, memory) storing non-transitory machine executable code which is executable by the processor (note para. [0045]: medium), the machine executable code of the data collection device configured to:
present user related questions to the user (note para. [0066], [0080] –[0081: authenticating users using question/ answer);
receive answers to the user related questions, the answers entered by the user into the data collection device (note para. [0066], [0080] –[0081);
process the answers to create secured answer data (note para. [0073], [0077]: hashed/ encrypted authenticator data; storing in a block chain);
transmit the secured answer data (note para. [0077], [0085]);
responsive to instructions from a remote server, collect and transmit collected authentication data from the user (note para. [0052], [0066);
the remote server (note figure 2.240: remote authentication engine; para. [0066]) having a processor and memory storing non-transitory machine executable code which is executable by the processor (note para. [0035], [0045]), the machine executable code configured to:
receive the secured answer data from the data collection device (note para. [0077], [0085]); and
process the secured answer to determine if the received secured answer data matches stored secured answer data (note para. [0077], [0085]: authenticating users upon matching or correctness of answer data);
responsive to the received secured answer data not matching the stored secured answer data, denying access to stored authentication data for the user (note para. [0077], [0085]);
responsive to the received secured answer data matching the stored secured answer data:
initiate an authentication session by communicating with the data collection device to collect and transmit collected authentication data (note para. [0066] – [0067], [0071]: data collection by authentication engine);
receive collected authentication data from the data collection device (note para. [0066] – [0067], [0071]); and
compare the collected authentication data received from the data collection device to stored user authentication data stored on the remote server to determine if a match occurs, such that a match verifies the identity of the user (note para. [0021], [0071], [0085]: further authenticating based on user’s image)
Regarding claim 10, Richards et al. teaches the system of claim 9 wherein the secured answer data comprises encrypted answers or hashed answers (note para. [0073]: hashed/ encrypted authenticator data)
Regarding claim 11, Richards et al. teaches the system of claim 9 wherein the collected authentication data comprises one or more images of the user captured by a camera of the data collection device (note para. [0021], [0071], [0085]: further authenticating based on user’s image)
Regarding claim 13, Richards et al. teaches the system of claim 9 further comprising transmitting a verified identity notice to a third party server and responsive thereto, receiving data from the third party server as part of a business transaction (note para. [0014], [0038]: client/ verification handler in communication with the authentication engine/ server regarding the authentication process)
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.
Claims 1-3, 5-6, 15-19 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Richards et al. in view of US 2018/0124047 A1 (hereinafter Fisher et al.)
Regarding claim 1, Richards et al. teaches a method for authenticating identity of a customer as part of a business transaction comprising:
presenting a customer, with customer questions, the customer questions having corresponding customer answers (note para. [0066], [0080] –[0081: authenticating users using question/ answer);
receiving customer answers from the customer in response to the presenting of customer questions (note para. [0066], [0080] –[0081);
processing the customer answers to create processed customer answers (note para. [0073], [0077]: hashed/ encrypted authenticator data; storing in a block chain);
transmitting the processed customer answers to a remote computing device (note para. [0077], [0085]);
comparing processed customer answers to stored data at the remote computing device (note para. [0077], [0085]);
responsive to the comparing determining that a match has not occurred, then denying further authentication (note para. [0077], [0085]: authenticating users upon matching or correctness of answer data);
Richards et al. fails to teach expressly responsive to the comparing determine that a match has occurred, then allowing further authentication by capturing and processing one or more facial images of the customer to verify the identity of the customer and liveness of the customer.
However, Fisher et al. teaches responsive to the comparing determine that a match has occurred, then allowing further authentication by capturing and processing one or more facial images of the customer to verify the identity of the customer and liveness of the customer (note para. [0043], [0045], [0052]: multiple/ rich identity verification services includes authenticating using multiple authentication mechanisms such as knowledge based answer matching and live facial image authentication etc.)
Fisher et al. and Richards et al are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor of user identity verification for online transactions. Therefore, before the filing of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in art to modify Richards et al method to further include the features of responsive to the comparing determine that a match has occurred, then allowing further authentication by capturing and processing one or more facial images of the customer to verify the identity of the customer and liveness of the customer in order to provide users an enhanced authentication/ liveness detection mechanism utilizing facial recognition technique. (note Fisher et al., para. [0002], [0052])
Regarding claim 2, Richards et al. teaches the method of claim 1 wherein the processed customer answers are encrypted, subject to a hash operation, or both (note para. [0073]: hashed/ encrypted authenticator data)
Regarding claim 3, Richards et al. teaches the method further comprising: converting the one or more facial images to captured authentication data (note para. [0066]); and comparing the captured authentication data to stored authentication data to determining if a match occurs (note para. [0066]: processing/ comparing facial images).
Regarding claim 5, it is rejected applying as same motivation and rationale applied above rejecting claim 1, furthermore, Fisher et al. teaches the method wherein a result of the identity and liveness verification of the customer is communicated to a business to thereby verify the identity of the customer to the business (note para. [0014], [0052]: liveness verification for online transaction)
Regarding claim 6, it is rejected applying as same motivation and rationale applied above rejecting claim 5, furthermore, Richards et al teaches the method of claim 5 wherein the business is a credit reporting agency or a lender (note para. [0066]: credit reporting agency)
Regarding claim 15, Richards et al teaches an authentication system for use by a business to verify identity of a user, the authentication system comprising:
a data collection device (note figure 2.210 and 2.220: request/ verification handlers; para. [0066], [0079]: authenticator device) having a screen and a user interface (note para. [0079]: authenticator device including display), the data collection device configured to:
receive answers from the user to questions presented to the user (note para. [0066], [0080] –[0081);
process the answers to create secure answer data (note para. [0073], [0077]: hashed/ encrypted authenticator data; storing in a block chain);
transmit the secure answer data to a verification server (note para. [0077], [0085]);
a verification server (note figure 2.240: remote authentication engine; para. [0066]) configured to:
receive the secure answer data from the data collection device (note para. [0077], [0085]);
compare the secure answer data or processed secure answer data to stored answer data (note para. [0077], [0085]: authenticating users upon matching or correctness of answer data);
responsive to the comparing determining that the secure answer data or processed secure answer data does not match the stored answer data, terminating the identify verification (note para. [0077], [0085]: authenticating users upon matching or correctness of answer data);
Richards et al. fails to teach expressly responsive to the comparing determining the secure answer data or processed secure answer data matchings the stored answer data, initiating an authentication session which includes capture of one or more images of the customer’s face with a camera associated with the data collection device or another device.
However, Fisher et al. teaches responsive to the comparing determining the secure answer data or processed secure answer data matchings the stored answer data, initiating an authentication session which includes capture of one or more images of the customer’s face with a camera associated with the data collection device or another device (note para. [0043], [0045], [0052]: multiple/ rich identity verification services includes authenticating using multiple authentication mechanisms such as knowledge based answer matching and live facial image authentication etc.)
Fisher et al. and Richards et al are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor of user identity verification for online transactions. Therefore, before the filing of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in art to modify Richards et al authentication method to further include the features of responsive to the comparing determining the secure answer data or processed secure answer data matchings the stored answer data, initiating an authentication session which includes capture of one or more images of the customer’s face with a camera associated with the data collection device or another device in order to provide users an enhanced authentication mechanism utilizing facial recognition technique. (note Fisher et al., para. [0002], [0052])
Regarding claim 16, Richards et al teaches the system of claim 15 wherein the data collection device is an electronic device owned by the user (note para. [0039], [0042], [0050]: camera, client side processor etc.)
Regarding claim 17, Richards et al teaches the system of claim 15 wherein the data collection device is an electronic device owned by the business (note para. [0042], [0050], [0065]: server side processor, third-party authentication system etc.)
Regarding claim 18, Richards et al teaches the system of claim 15 wherein the stored answer data is created by performing the same processing on the answers as occurred by the data collection device to form the secure answer data (note para. [0073]: processing (e.g. hashing/ encrypting) of authenticator data)
Regarding claim 19, Richards et al teaches the system of claim 15 wherein the questions presented to the user are based on information personal to the user (note para. [0016], [0085]: based on information related to user account or credit report)
Regarding claim 21, Richards et al teaches the system of claim 15 wherein biometric information is stored in a blockchain (note para. [0073]: storing authentication record in block chain)
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. See 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); and 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) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the conflicting application or patent is shown to be commonly owned with this application. See 37 CFR 1.130(b).
Effective January 1, 1994, a registered attorney or agent of record may sign a terminal disclaimer. A terminal disclaimer signed by the assignee must fully comply with 37 CFR 3.73(b).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www. uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The 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/process/file/efs/ guidance /eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1-22 of the instant application are rejected under the judicially created doctrine of obviousness type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of the commonly owned patent No. 10,803,160 B2.
In particular, claims 1, 9 and 15 of the instant application are being unpatentable over claims 1, 6, 9 and 15 of the commonly owned patent No. 10,803,160 B2; claims 2-4, 10, 14 and 21 of the instant application are being unpatentable over claims 1-3, 6-8, 9 and 15 of the commonly owned patent No. 10,803,160 B2; and claims 5-8, 11-13, 16-19 and 22 of the instant application are being unpatentable over claims 3-5, 8, 10-14 and 16-20 of the commonly owned patent No. 10,803,160 B2.
Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 1-20 of the commonly owned patent contains every element of claims 1-22 of the instant application and thus anticipate the claim(s) of the instant application. Conflicting claim sets of both the instant application and the commonly owned patent are directed to a method of enrolling and authenticating identity of the customers by comparing answers to questions and facial images. Claims 1-22 of the instant application therefore is not patently distinct from the conflicting claim set of the commonly owned patent and as such is unpatentable over obvious-type double patenting. A later patent/application claim is not patentably distinct from an earlier claim if the later claim is anticipated by the earlier claim.
This is an obviousness type double patenting rejection.
Claims 1-22 of the instant application are rejected under the judicially created doctrine of obviousness type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-19 of the commonly owned patent No. 11,727,098.
In particular, claims 1, 9 and 15 of the instant application are being unpatentable over claims 1, 6, 10 and 15 of the commonly owned patent No. 11,727,098; claims 2-4, 10, 14 and 21 of the instant application are being unpatentable over claims 1-2, 6-7, 9-10, 15 and 19 the commonly owned patent No. 11,727,098; and claims 5-8, 11-13, 16-19 and 22 of the instant application are being unpatentable over claims 1, 4, 6, 10-12 and 16-18 of the commonly owned patent No. 11,727,098.
Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 1-19 of the commonly owned patent contains every element of claims 1-22 of the instant application and thus anticipate the claim(s) of the instant application. Conflicting claim sets of both the instant application and the commonly owned patent are directed to a method of enrolling and authenticating identity of the customers by comparing answers to questions and facial images. Claims 1-22 of the instant application therefore is not patently distinct from the conflicting claim set of the commonly owned patent and as such is unpatentable over obvious-type double patenting. A later patent/application claim is not patentably distinct from an earlier claim if the later claim is anticipated by the earlier claim.
This is an obviousness type double patenting rejection.
Claims 1-22 of the instant application are rejected under the judicially created doctrine of obviousness type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-28 of the commonly owned patent No. 12,182,244 B2.
In particular, claims 1, 9 and 15 of the instant application are being unpatentable over claims 1, 9, 15 and 23 of the commonly owned patent No. 12,182,244 B2; claims 2-4, 10, 14 and 21 of the instant application are being unpatentable over claims 1-4, 14-15 and 21of the commonly owned patent No. 12,182,244 B2; and claims 5-8, 11-13, 16-19 and 22 of the instant application are being unpatentable over claims 3-4, 8, 11-13, 20 and 22-28 of the commonly owned patent No. 12,182,244 B2.
Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 1-28 of the commonly owned patent contains every element of claims 1-22 of the instant application and thus anticipate the claim(s) of the instant application. Conflicting claim sets of both the instant application and the commonly owned patent are directed to a method of enrolling and authenticating identity of the customers by comparing answers to questions and facial images. Claims 1-22 of the instant application therefore is not patently distinct from the conflicting claim set of the commonly owned patent and as such is unpatentable over obvious-type double patenting. A later patent/application claim is not patentably distinct from an earlier claim if the later claim is anticipated by the earlier claim.
This is an obviousness type double patenting rejection.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4, 7-8, 12, 14, 20 and 22 would be allowable if rewritten (or if a terminal disclaimer is filed) to overcome the obviousness type double patenting rejections, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
A shortened statutory period for response to this action is set to expire in 3 (Three) months and 0 (Zero) days from the mailing date of this letter. Failure to respond within the period for response will result in ABANDOMENT of the application (see 35 U.S.C 133, M.P.E.P 710.02(b)). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHANTO ABEDIN whose telephone number is 571-272-3551. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F from 8:30 AM to 6:30 PM. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Jung (Jay) Kim, can be reached on 571-272-3804. The RightFax number for faxing directly to the examiner is 571-273-3551.
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.
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 either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. 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).
/SHANTO ABEDIN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2494
Prosecution Insights