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 .
This Office Action is responsive to application 19/041,093 that the Applicant filed on January 30, 2025, and presented 20 claims. In response to the restriction requirement, Applicant cancelled claims 8-13 and added claims 21-26. Claims 1-7 and 14-26 remain pending in the application.
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, 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 following conventions apply to the mapping of the prior art to the claims:
Italicized text – claim language.
Parenthetical plain text – Examiner’s citation and explanation.
Citation without an explanation – an explanation has been previously provided for the respective limitation(s).
Quotation marks – language quoted from a prior art reference.
Underlining – language quoted from a claim.
Brackets – material altered from either a prior art reference or a claim, which includes the Examiner’s explanation that relates a claim limitation to the quoted material of a reference.
Braces – a limitation taught by another reference, but the limitation is presented with the mapping of the instant reference for context.
Numbered superscript – a first phrase to be moved upwards to the primary reference analysis.
Lettered superscript – a second phrase to be moved after the movement of the first phrase from which it was lifted, or more succinctly, move numbered material first, lettered material last.
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, 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 following conventions apply to the mapping of the prior art to the claims:
Italicized text – claim language.
Parenthetical plain text – Examiner’s citation and explanation.
Citation without an explanation – an explanation has been previously provided for the respective limitation(s).
Quotation marks – language quoted from a prior art reference.
Underlining – language quoted from a claim.
Brackets – material altered from either a prior art reference or a claim, which includes the Examiner’s explanation that relates a claim limitation to the quoted material of a reference.
Braces – a limitation taught by another reference, but the limitation is presented with the mapping of the instant reference for context.
Numbered superscript – a first phrase to be moved upwards to the primary reference analysis.
Lettered superscript – a second phrase to be moved after the movement of the first phrase from which it was lifted, or more succinctly, move numbered material first, lettered material last.
A. Claims 1-7 and 14-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over “Borunda” (US 10,630,648) in view of “Thackston” (US 12,231,533), and further in view of “Lacey” (US 2017/0140174).
Regarding Claim 1
Borunda discloses
A system (Fig. 4, abstract), comprising:
one or more memories; and one or more processors, coupled to the one or more memories (Col. 17:7-33, “The processor and the memory can be supplemented by, or incorporated in, special purpose logic circuitry.”), configured to:
receive a digital representation of a physical identifier (ID) associated with a user (Col. 5:55-6:8, “The user can use the mobile app 306 to obtain a digital [representation] image of his driver's license [physical identifier]. For example, the user may use a camera associated with the client device 302 to take a picture of the driver's license.”; and “The image of the driver's license or bar code is provided to [received by] the digital ID provider SDK [software development kit] 310.”);
generate an encrypted representation of the digital representation (Col. 6:9-16, “The digital ID provider SDK encrypts the image of the driver's license or scanned code using a public key associated with the digital ID provider 314.”);
1 …;
2 …;
3 …;
4 …; and
transmit, to a remote server, the encrypted representation…5 (Fig. 4, Col. 6:23-36, “The wallet server 312 can obtain [via a transmission] additional information about the user. For example, the wallet [remote] server may use a user verification module 404 to determine whether the user is a verified user. In some implementations, determining whether a user is verified includes obtaining a user profile 406 of the user.”).
Borunda doesn’t disclose
1 receive, from a user device, a request to use the encrypted representation;
2 transmit, to the user device, a prompt associated with validation of the request;
3 receive, from the user device and based on the prompt, an image of the user;
4 validate the request using the image of the user;
5 … with a request to perform an action associated with the user.
Thackston, however, discloses
1 receive, from a user device, a request to use the encrypted representation (Col. Col. 6:22-32, “As shown in FIG. 3 , procedure ‘A’, e.g. generally represented at step 200 shown in FIG. 2 , may begin with 201 in which a Licensee (customer) has launched [as a request] e-Retailer (mobile) software application installed on [user device] MCD [mobile computing device]. At 202, eRMSA directs a digital driver's license fragment [i.e., the encrypted representation of Borunda Col. 6:9-16] processing service (FPS)…”);
2 transmit, to the user device, a prompt associated with validation of the request (Col. 6:22-32, “At 202, eRMSA directs a digital driver's license fragment processing service (FPS) to prompt the licensee (customer) to perform a biometric scan [via the user device] and prepare an identity authentication [validation] request.”);
5 … with a request to perform an action associated with the user (Col. 6:22-32, “At 202, eRMSA [retailer mobile software application] directs a digital driver's license fragment processing service (FPS) to prompt the licensee (customer) to perform a biometric scan and prepare an identity authentication [or an action associated with the user] request.”, i.e., upon receiving the encrypted physical ID as taught by Borunda (Fig. 4, Col. 6:23-36) the request for verification or authentication of the user is fulfilled).
Regarding the combination of Borunda and Thackston, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify ID verification system of Borunda to arrive at the claimed invention. KSR establishes that a rationale for obviousness is proven by showing a “use of [a] known technique to improve similar devices in the same way.” See MPEP § 2143(I)(C).
To substantiate the conclusion of obviousness under this KSR rationale, the Examiner finds pursuant to MPEP § 2143(I)(C):
1) the prior art contained a base system, namely the ID verification system of Borunda, upon which the claimed invention can be seen as an “improvement” through the use of a request-prompt feature for verification;
2) the prior art contained a “comparable” system, namely the authorization system of Thackston, that has been improved in the same way as the claimed invention through the request-prompt feature for verification; and
3) one of ordinary skill in the art could have applied the known improvement technique of applying the request-prompt feature for verification to the base ID verification system of Borunda, and the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Lacey, however, discloses
3 receive, {from the user device and based on the prompt (Tackston Col. 6:22-32)}, an image of the user (¶¶ [0081]-[0082], “an image capture device module 226 (including, for example, applications, drivers, etc.) that works in conjunction with the image capture device 214 to capture images, such as images or scans of physical documents, faces, real-world scenes, etc.;”; and “a biometric capture device module 227 that works in conjunction with the biometric capture device 217 (and/or the image capture device 214) for capturing biometric data [image] of a user, including data relating to any appropriate physical and/or biological characteristic of a user;”);
4 validate the request using the image of the user (¶ [0087], “a biometric analysis module 234 for analyzing biometric data, including determining whether sample biometric data matches reference biometric data (e.g., for user authentication [validation] purposes), determining whether a photograph of a user extracted from a document matches a captured photograph [image] of the user (e.g., a photograph captured by the image capture [user] device 214),”);
Regarding the combination of Borunda-Thackston and Lacey, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify ID verification system of Borunda-Thackston to arrive at the claimed invention. KSR establishes that a rationale for obviousness is proven by showing a “use of [a] known technique to improve similar devices in the same way.” See MPEP § 2143(I)(C).
To substantiate the conclusion of obviousness under this KSR rationale, the Examiner finds pursuant to MPEP § 2143(I)(C):
1) the prior art contained a base system, namely the ID verification system of Borunda-Thackston, upon which the claimed invention can be seen as an “improvement” through the use of an image validation feature;
2) the prior art contained a “comparable” system, namely the authorization system of Lacey, that has been improved in the same way as the claimed invention through the image validation feature; and
3) one of ordinary skill in the art could have applied the known improvement technique of applying the image validation feature to the base ID verification system of Borunda-Thackston, and the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding Claim 2
Borunda in view of Thackston, and further in view of Lacey (“Borunda-Thackston-Lacey”) discloses the system of claim 1, and Borunda further discloses
wherein the digital representation comprises an alphanumeric identifier unique to the physical ID, an optical scan of a portion of the physical ID, or a digital image of the physical ID (Col. 5:55-63, “Alternatively, or additionally, the user may scan their driver's license [physical ID] using a conventional scanner and transfer the scanned driver's license [digital image] to the client device 302.”).
Regarding Claim 3
Borunda-Thackston-Lacey discloses the system of claim 1, and Borunda further discloses
wherein the one or more processors (Col. 17:7-33), to receive the {request to use the encrypted representation (Thackston Col. 6:22-32)}, are configured to:
1…,
wherein the account is linked to the encrypted representation (Col. 6:23-36, “or example, the wallet server may use a user verification module 404 to determine whether the user is a verified user. In some implementations, determining whether a user is verified includes obtaining a user profile 406 of the user. The user profile 406 may include information that can be used to determine whether the user has accounts with a financial institution. For example, the user may have bank account, insurance, or an investment account with the financial institution.”).
Thackston further discloses
1 receive a request to use an account associated with the user,…( Col. Col. 6:22-32, “As shown in FIG. 3 , procedure ‘A’, e.g. generally represented at step 200 shown in FIG. 2 , may begin with 201 in which a Licensee (customer) [with an associated user account] has launched [as a request] e-Retailer (mobile) software application installed on MCD [mobile computing device].)
Regarding the combination of Borunda and Thackston, the rationale to combine is the same as provided for claim 1 due to the overlapping subject matter of claims 1 and 3.
Regarding Claim 4
Borunda-Thackston-Lacey discloses the system of claim 1, and Borunda further discloses
wherein the one or more processors (Col. 17:7-33) are further configured to:
determine the remote server based on the request to use the encrypted representation (Col. 6:63-7:3, “At 218 FPS transfers identity authentication request ciphertext fragment 2 to eRMSA, and at 219 eRMSA sends identity authentication request ciphertext fragment 2 via internet to e-Retailer application [remote] server.”, i.e., to send the request to the appropriate e-Retailer server, determining the remote server to which the “identity authentication request” is transmitted is required).
Regarding Claim 5
Borunda-Thackston-Lacey discloses the system of claim 1, and Thackston further discloses
wherein the prompt, associated with validation of the request (Col. 6:22-32), includes…1
Lacey further discloses
1 …a prompt to allow a camera, associated with the user device, to capture the image of the user (¶ [0091], “a request handling module 242 for receiving requests for information (e.g., from the server 104, a requesting device 108-n (e.g., a third party), and/or another client device 102-n), providing prompts to a user of the client [user] device [and associated camera] 102-1 (e.g., via the user interface 206), receiving partial or full authorizations or denials of the requests from the user, and responding to the requests with appropriate responses (e.g., by communicating with the server 104, a requesting device 108-n, and/or another client device 102-n)”; and ¶ [0073]).
Regarding the combination of Borunda and Thackston, the rationale to combine is the same as provided for claim 1 due to the overlapping subject matter of claims 1 and 5.
Regarding the combination of Borunda-Thackston and Lacey, the rationale to combine is the same as provided for claim 1 due to the overlapping subject matter of claims 1 and 5.
Regarding Claim 6
Borunda-Thackston-Lacey discloses the system of claim 1, and Lacey further discloses
wherein the one or more {processors (Borunda Col. 17:7-33)}, to {validate the request using the image of the user (¶¶ [0081]-[0082], [0087])}, are configured to:
compute a similarity score between the image of the user and a stored image associated with the encrypted representation (¶ [0225], “The photograph from the document [image of the user] is then compared to the reference [stored] photograph(s) [stored image] to determine if they substantially match [using a similarity score]. The comparison uses facial recognition techniques, such as comparing, between the photograph from the document and the reference photograph biometric information…”); and
validate the request based on the similarity score satisfying a threshold
(¶¶ [0226]-[0227]), “The user's face is then compared to the photograph in the document using one or more of the above techniques (or a technique not listed) to determine whether the photograph matches the user, and the verification [validation] rating is based at least in part on a degree of match [satisfying a threshold] between the biometric information from the photograph of the user [associated with the request] and the biometric information from the reference photograph”).
Regarding the combination of Borunda-Thackston and Lacey, the rationale to combine is the same as provided for claim 1 due to the overlapping subject matter of claims 1 and 6.
Regarding Claim 7
Borunda-Thackston-Lacey discloses the system of claim 7, and Lacey further discloses
wherein the one or more processors (Col. 17:7-33) are further configured to:
receive, with the digital representation of the physical ID, the stored image associated with the encrypted representation (¶ [0229], “In some implementations, in order to facilitate comparison between photographs, a device includes components and/or application modules [that receive the digital representation and the stored image] for performing imaging techniques, such as image rectification, creation/calculation of depth maps, calculation of reflectivity, and the like.”).
Regarding the combination of Borunda-Thackston and Lacey, the rationale to combine is the same as provided for claim 1 due to the overlapping subject matter of claims 1 and 7.
Regarding Independent Claims 14 and 21 and Dependent claims 15-20 and 22-26
With respect to independent claims 14 and 21 and dependent claims 15-20 and 22-26 a corresponding reasoning as given earlier for independent claim 1 and dependent claims 2-7 applies, mutatis mutandis, to the subject matter of claims 14-26. Therefore, claims 14-26 are rejected, for similar reasons, under the grounds set forth for claims 1-7.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to D'ARCY WINSTON STRAUB whose telephone number is (303)297-4405. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00-5:00 Mountain Time.
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, WILLIAM KORZUCH can be reached at (571)272-7589. 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.
/D'Arcy Winston Straub/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2491
Prosecution Insights