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
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1- 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover mental process (concept performed in a human mind, including as observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). The claims recite a method/apparatus spoofing determination. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the steps do not add meaningful limitations to be considered specifically applied to a particular technological problem to be solved. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the steps of the claimed invention can be done mentally and no additional features in the claims would preclude them from being performed as such.
According to the USPTO guidelines, a claim is directed to non-statutory subject matter if:
STEP 1: the claim does not fall within one of the four statutory categories of invention (process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter), or
STEP 2: the claim recites a judicial exception, e.g., an abstract idea, without reciting additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, as determined using the following analysis:
STEP 2A (PRONG 1): Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
STEP 2A (PRONG 2): Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
STEP 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
Using the two-step inquiry, it is clear that claims directed to an abstract idea as shown below:
STEP 1: Do the claims fall within one of the statutory categories?
YES. Claim 1 is directed to a apparatus, i.e., a machine, claim 20 is directed to a CRM, i.e., manufacture and claim 19 is directed to a method, i.e., process.
STEP 2A (PRONG 1): Is the claim directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon or an abstract idea?
YES, the claims are directed toward a mental process (i.e., abstract idea).
With regard to STEP 2A (PRONG 1), the guidelines provide three groupings of subject matter that are considered abstract ideas:
Mathematical concepts – mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations;
Certain methods of organizing human activity – fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions); and
Mental processes – concepts that are practicably performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion).
The method in claims 1, 19 and 20 comprise a mental process that can be practicably performed in the human mind therefore, an abstract idea.
Claims 1, 19 and 20 recites:
identify a contribution region within the image to be used in authenticating the person, determine a determination region to be used for spoofing determination processing based on the identified contribution region person, determine a determination region to be used for spoofing determination processing based on the identified contribution region person as a mental process as an abstract idea);
These limitations, as drafted, is a simple process that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations in the mind or by a human. The Examiner notes that under MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III), the courts consider a mental process (thinking) that “can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper" to be an abstract idea. CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1372, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1695 (Fed. Cir. 2011). As the Federal Circuit explained, "methods which can be performed mentally, or which are the equivalent of human mental work, are unpatentable abstract ideas the ‘basic tools of scientific and technological work’ that are open to all.’" 654 F.3d at 1371, 99 USPQ2d at 1694 (citing Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 175 USPQ 673 (1972)). See also Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs. Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 71, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1965 ("‘[M]ental processes[] and abstract intellectual concepts are not patentable, as they are the basic tools of scientific and technological work’" (quoting Benson, 409 U.S. at 67, 175 USPQ at 675)); Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 589, 198 USPQ 193, 197 (1978) (same).
The courts do not distinguish between mental processes that are performed entirely in the human mind and mental processes that require a human to use a physical aid (e.g., pen and paper or a slide rule) to perform the claim limitation. See, e.g., Benson, 409 U.S. at 67, 65, 175 USPQ at 674-75, 674 (noting that the claimed "conversion of [binary-coded decimal] numerals to pure binary numerals can be done mentally," i.e., "as a person would do it by head and hand."); Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp., 839 F.3d 1138, 1139, 120 USPQ2d 1473, 1474 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (holding that claims to a mental process of "translating a functional description of a logic circuit into a hardware component description of the logic circuit" are directed to an abstract idea, because the claims "read on an individual performing the claimed steps mentally or with pencil and paper").
Nor do the courts distinguish between claims that recite mental processes performed by humans and claims that recite mental processes performed on a computer. As the Federal Circuit has explained, "[c]ourts have examined claims that required the use of a computer and still found that the underlying, patent-ineligible invention could be performed via pen and paper or in a person’s mind." Versata Dev. Group v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1335, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1702 (Fed. Cir. 2015). See also Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1318, 120 USPQ2d 1353, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (‘‘[W]ith the exception of generic computer-implemented steps, there is nothing in the claims themselves that foreclose them from being performed by a human, mentally or with pen and paper.’’); Mortgage Grader, Inc. v. First Choice Loan Servs. Inc., 811 F.3d 1314, 1324, 117 USPQ2d 1693, 1699 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (holding that computer-implemented method for "anonymous loan shopping" was an abstract idea because it could be "performed by humans without a computer").
Because both product and process claims may recite a "mental process", the phrase "mental processes" should be understood as referring to the type of abstract idea, and not to the statutory category of the claim. The courts have identified numerous product claims as reciting mental process-type abstract ideas, for instance the product claims to computer systems and computer-readable media in Versata Dev. Group. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 115 USPQ2d 1681 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
As such, a person could identify region determine region and do spoofing determination either mentally or using a pen and paper. The mere nominal recitation that the various steps are being executed by one or more hardware processors (e.g. processing unit) does not take the limitations out of the mental process grouping. Thus, the claims recite a mental process.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of a mental step which could be performed with a simple tool such as a pen and paper, then it falls within the “mental steps” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
STEP 2A (PRONG 2): Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
NO, the claims do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
With regard to STEP 2A (prong 2), whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, the guidelines provide the following exemplary considerations that are indicative that an additional element (or combination of elements) may have integrated the judicial exception into a practical application:
an additional element reflects an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field;
an additional element that applies or uses a judicial exception to affect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition;
an additional element implements a judicial exception with, or uses a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim;
an additional element effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; and
an additional element applies or uses the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
While the guidelines further state that the exemplary considerations are not an exhaustive list and that there may be other examples of integrating the exception into a practical application, the guidelines also list examples in which a judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application:
an additional element merely recites the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely includes instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea;
an additional element adds insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception; and
an additional element does no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
Claims 1- 20 do not recite any of the exemplary considerations that are indicative of an abstract idea having been integrated into a practical application.
Claim 1 recites:
at least one processor; and a memory coupled to the at least one processor, the memory storing instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to (instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea).
claims 1, 8 and 15 recite:
acquire an image that includes a person to be authenticated (adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, e.g., mere data gathering in conjunction with a law of nature or abstract idea);
STEP 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
With regard to STEP 2B, whether the claims recite additional elements that provide significantly more than the recited judicial exception, the guidelines specify that the pre-guideline procedure is still in effect. Specifically, that examiners should continue to consider whether an additional element or combination of elements:
adds a specific limitation or combination of limitations that are not well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field, which is indicative that an inventive concept may be present; or
simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, which is indicative that an inventive concept may not be present.
With regard to (2b) the Guidance provided the following examples of limitations that may be enough to qualify as “significantly more" when recited in a claim with a judicial exception:
Improvement to another technology or technical field
Improvement to functioning of computer itself and/or applying the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine
Effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing.
Adding a specific limitation other that what is well understood, routine and conventional in the field, or adding unconventional steps that confine the claim to a particular useful application
Meaningful limitation beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment.
The Guidance further set forth limitations that were found not to be enough to qualify as “significantly more” when recited in a claim with a judicial exception include:
Adding words to “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception or mere instructions to implement abstract ideas on a computer
Simply appending well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the industry specified at a high level of generality to the judicial exception, e.g. a claim to an abstract idea requiring no more than a generic
Computer to perform generic computer functions that are well -understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the industry.
Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, e.g. mere data gathering in conjunction with a law of nature or abstract idea
Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
Claims 1- 20 do not recite any additional elements that are not well-understood, routine or conventional.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The above identified additional computer components, using instructions to apply the judicial exception, are merely generic computer components that are well-known, routine, and conventional as is evidenced by Bancorp Services v. Sun Life (Fed. Cir. 2012) and Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank (2014).
claims 1, 19 and 20 recite:
acquire an image that includes a person to be authenticated (adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, e.g., mere data gathering in conjunction with a law of nature or abstract idea);
Thus, since claims 1, 19 and 20 are: (a) directed toward an abstract idea, (b) do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, and (c) do not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, claims 1, 19 and 20 are not eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C 101. Similar analysis is made for the dependent claims 2-18 and the dependent claims are similarly identified as: being directed towards an abstract idea, not reciting additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, and not reciting additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3, 9, 10, 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Yuen et al. (US 10,380,444)
With respect to claim 1, Yuen et al. teach at least one processor; and a memory coupled to the at least one processor, the memory storing instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to: (col. 17 lines 1-19);
acquire an image that includes a person to be authenticated (Fig. 2f, face video capturing);
identify a contribution region within the image to be used in authenticating the person (col. 12, 5.1 Implementation detail, employed to detect and track 66 facial landmarks);
determine a determination region to be used for spoofing determination processing based on the identified contribution region person (col. 12, 5.1 Implementation detail, REGION OF INTERESTs are combined to form 15 overlapped local REGION OF INTERESTs.); and
execute the spoofing determination processing for determining spoofing based on the determination region (col. 12, 5.1 Implementation detail, For local rPPG correlation model, all the possible 120 combinations are generated and normalized from the 15 local rPPG signals, than Fig. 2e);.
With respect to claim 2, Yuen et al. teach that the determination region is determined by adding a spoofing characteristic region, which has a spoofing characteristic, to the contribution region. (col. 12, 5.1 Implementation detail, 4 additional interest points are generated from the mid-point of landmarks)
With respect to claim 3, Yuen et al. teach that the spoofing characteristic region includes at least one of reflection, wrinkles, peeling, and dirt of the image of the person to be authenticated (col. 5 lines 38-40, rPPG detects vascular blood flow based on the absorption and reflection of light passing through human skin).
With respect to claim 9, Yuen et al. teach a first spoofing determination for determining whether or not the image is an attack attempting unauthorized authentication is performed based on the determination region (Fig. 2e Classifier).
With respect to claim 10, Yuen et al. teach in the first spoofing determination, attack is determined if an area of the contribution region is equal to or less than a predetermined value. (Fig. 2e Classifier)
Claim 19 is rejected as same reason as claim 1 above.
Claim 20 is rejected as same reason as claim 1 above.
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 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 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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Yuen et al. (US 10,380,444) in view of Wang et al. (US 2020/0394392).
Yuen et al. teach all the limitations of claim 1 as applied above from which claim 4 respectively depend.
Yuen et al. do not teach expressly that the determination region is determined by excluding, from the contribution region, a spoofing erroneous determination region corresponding to a predetermined condition that induces erroneous determination in spoofing determination.
Wang et al. teach the determination region is determined by excluding, from the contribution region, a spoofing erroneous determination region corresponding to a predetermined condition that induces erroneous determination in spoofing determination. (para [0049], excluding a fringe face area).
At the time of effective filing, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to exclude a fringe face area in the method of Yuen et al..
The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been that to isolate the main face region allows the system to quantify pose discrepancy and reliably detect spoofing.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Wang et al. with Yuen et al. to obtain the invention as specified in claim 4.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Yuen et al. (US 10,380,444) in view of Wang et al. (US 2020/0394392) and in further view of KATO (US 2023/0419738).
Yuen et al. and Wang et al. teach all the limitations of claim 4 as applied above from which claim 5 respectively depend.
Yuen et al. and Wang et al. do not teach expressly that the spoofing erroneous determination region is excluded from the determination region based on blur or brightness of the image of the person to be authenticated.
KATO teaches the spoofing erroneous determination region is excluded from the determination region based on blur or brightness of the image of the person to be authenticated. (para [0042], it is also possible to exclude pixels that are statistical outliers from the H, S, and V values of all the pixels in the face area).
At the time of effective filing, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to exclude outliers from the H, S, and V (corresponding to brightness) values of all the pixels in the face area in the method of Yuen et al. and Wang et al.
The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been that to accurately determine skin area of face.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine KATO with Yuen et al. and Wang et al. to obtain the invention as specified in claim 5.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Yuen et al. (US 10,380,444) in view of KIM (KR 20230126901).
Yuen et al. teach all the limitations of claim 1 as applied above from which claim 6 respectively depend.
Yuen et al. do not teach expressly that a region other than a region of a shielding object in the image of the person to be authenticated is set as the contribution region.
Kim teaches a region other than a region of a shielding object in the image of the person to be authenticated is set as the contribution region (page 3 last, the Classification model 210 may set classification criteria based on objects included in the real image of a face, and classify the real image into one or more regions according
to the classification criteria. For example, the classification model 210 classifies an area excluding the variable object when the object included in the real image is not an object that is normally fixed to the face but a detachable variable object (eg, glasses, a hat, etc.) ).
At the time of effective filing, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to exclude shielding object in the method of Yuen et al..
The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been that to accurately determine skin area of face.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Wang et al. with Yuen et al. to obtain the invention as specified in claim 6.
Claims 7-8 are rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Yuen et al. (US 10,380,444) in view of Ueno et al. (KR 20230004259).
Yuen et al. teach all the limitations of claim 1 as applied above from which claim 7 respectively depend.
Yuen et al. do not teach expressly that acquire a registered image of the person to be authenticated; and determine the contribution region based on a region that contributes to determination of the similarity between the registered image and the image acquired by the acquiring.
Ueno et al. teach acquire a registered image of the person to be authenticated; and determine the contribution region based on a region that contributes to determination of the similarity between the registered image and the image acquired by the acquiring. (page 8 2nd paragraph, The face authentication unit 300 performs face authentication by confirming whether the calculated similarity satisfies a predetermined threshold condition. The face authentication unit 300 outputs the authentication
result to an output device or other system. As an authentication method, the following can be used, for example. In the case of 1:1 authentication, if the calculated degree of similarity satisfies a predetermined threshold condition, the user becomes the registered user himself. If the threshold condition is not satisfied, it is judged as "identity mismatch". In the case of 1:N authentication, a registered user who has the largest similarity calculated and satisfies a predetermined threshold condition is determined as the user. When the threshold condition is not satisfied, it is determined as "unregistered".).
At the time of effective filing, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to authenticate user using registered image in the method of Yuen et al..
The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been that to accurately authenticate user using well known method.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Ueno et al. with Yuen et al. to obtain the invention as specified in claim 7.
With respect to claim 8, Ueno et al. teach an image of a person who is not wearing a shielding object is acquired as the registered image. (page 4, 4th paragraph, bare face).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Randolph Chu whose telephone number is 571-270-1145. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday to Thursday from 7:30 am - 5 pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Matthew Bella can be reached on (571) 272-7778.
The fax phone 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 either 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).
/RANDOLPH I CHU/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2667
Prosecution Insights