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 .
Amendment A, received on 30 June 2026, has been entered into record. In this amendment, claims 1, 4-6, 9, 12, 15, 16, 18-20 have been amended.
Claims 1-20 are presented for examination.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-5, 7-12, and 14-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al. (US 2023/0186685 A1 and Zhang hereinafter) in view of Soryal (US 2023/0138176 A1), and further in view of Weninger et al. (WO 2026/027430 A1 and Weninger hereinafter).
As to claims 1 and 15, Zhang discloses a system and method for interactive silent liveness detection, the system and method having:
one or more memories (system memory) (0074, lines 3-8); and
one or more processors, communicatively coupled to the one or more memories, configured to (computer including a processing unit) (0074, lines 3-8):
detect an authentication event associated with an access attempt for the user account, the authentication event being initiated by an access requester from a user device;
initiate a live identity verification challenge based on detecting a trigger event associated with the authentication event (user at client device performing a transaction with a system, application, or service that requires verification of user’s current physical presence) (0030, lines 5-13);
generate one or more prompts for the live identity verification challenge, the one or more prompts indicating one or more tasks to be performed by the access requester (renders instruction for the user to position his or her body in front of the client device) (0035, lines 1-4);
execute the live identity verification challenge by prompting the access requester, with the one or more prompts, to perform the one or more tasks using a camera of a trusted device, wherein the one or more tasks include providing a live object image of the authentication object using the camera (0035-0037);
obtain, from the trusted device, digital evidence of the access requester performing the one or more tasks, wherein the digital evidence includes the live object image (0035-0037);
analyze, using the machine learning model, the digital evidence to verify whether or not the access requester is an authorized user of the user account (use a machine learning approach to infer an expected degree of natural user movement and confirm that changes in head location and orientation between frames are consistent with this expected degree of natural movement) (0045, lines 22-27, 34-37).
Zhang fails to specifically disclose:
obtain one or more enrollment images of a hand-held authentication object based on an enrollment event;
classify, using a machine learning model, the hand-held authentication object as appropriate or inappropriate for being used for authentication based on the one or more enrollment images based on a size of the hand-held authentication object, and based on a type of the hand-held authentication object;
hand-held authentication object;
perform one of: authenticating the access attempt based on the access requester being verified as the authorized user of the user account; or denying the access attempt based on the access requester not being verified as the authorized user of the user account.
Nonetheless, this feature is well known in the art and would have been an obvious modification of the teachings disclosed by Zhang, as taught by Soryal.
Soryal discloses a system and method for user authentication using a mobile device, the system and method having:
perform one of: authenticating the access attempt based on the access requester being verified as the authorized user of the user account; or denying the access attempt based on the access requester not being verified as the authorized user of the user account (in response to the live stream and the prerecorded video clip being determined to comprise a threshold similarity according to a similarity criterion, he user currently using the mobile device can be determined to be associated with the authorized user profile, unblocking access to the feature of the mobile device) (0021, lines 18-22; 0047, lines 17-21).
Given the teaching of Soryal, a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have readily recognized the desirability and advantages of modifying the teachings of Zhang with the teachings of Soryal by authenticating the access attempt. Soryal recites motivation by disclosing that providing access to features of a mobile device according to authentication based on machine learning and input patterns ensures only authorized access. It is obvious that the teachings of Soryal would have improved the teachings of Zhang by authenticating the access attempt in order to authenticate an access attempt to ensure only authorized access.
Zhang in view of Soryal fails to specifically disclose:
obtain one or more enrollment images of a hand-held authentication object based on an enrollment event;
classify, using a machine learning model, the hand-held authentication object as appropriate or inappropriate for being used for authentication based on the one or more enrollment images based on a size of the hand-held authentication object, and based on a type of the hand-held authentication object;
hand-held authentication object.
Nonetheless, these features are well known in the art and would have been an obvious modification of the teachings disclosed by Zhang in view of Soryal, as taught by Weninger.
Weninger discloses a system and method for material authentication, the system and method having:
obtain one or more enrollment images of a hand-held authentication object based on an enrollment event (page 3, lines 9-10, 14-15; page 14, lines 28-35);
classify, using a machine learning model, the hand-held authentication object as appropriate or inappropriate for being used for authentication based on the one or more enrollment images based on a size of the hand-held authentication object, and based on a type of the hand-held authentication object;
hand-held authentication object (page 3, lines 22-25).
Given the teaching of Weninger, a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have readily recognized the desirability and advantages of modifying the teachings of Zhang in view of Soryal with the teachings of Weninger by classifying a hand-held object based on size and type. Weninger recites motivation by disclosing that performing authentication on enrollment images mitigates the risk of fraud (page 14, lines 29-31). It is obvious that the teachings of Weninger would have improved the teachings of Zhang in view of Soryal by classifying an object based on enrollment images in order to mitigate fraud.
As to claims 2 and 16, Zhang discloses:
wherein the one or more tasks include providing a live user image of the access requester using the camera of the trusted device (0035),
wherein the digital evidence includes the live user image (0035-0037), and
wherein the one or more processors are configured to analyze, using the machine learning model, the live user image to verify whether or not the access requester is the authorized user of the user account (0045, lines 22-27, 34-37).
As to claims 3 and 17, Zhang discloses:
wherein the live user image depicts a face of the access requester for facial verification (0035, lines 4-8; 104, Figure 1).
As to claims 4 and 18, Zhang discloses:
wherein the digital evidence includes the live object image (0038, lines 5-8), and
wherein the one or more processors are configured to analyze, using the machine learning model, the live object image to verify whether or not the access requester is the authorized user of the user account (0049, lines 14-19).
As to claims 5 and 19, Zhang discloses:
wherein the one or more processors are configured to (0038, lines 5-8; 0047, lines 8-16; 0049, lines 1-4):
obtain the live object image of the object (0038, lines 5-8; 0047, lines 8-16; 0049, lines 1-4);
analyze, using the machine learning model, the hand-held authentication object to verify whether or not the hand-held authentication object corresponds to the user account (0049, lines 14-19).
Zhang fails to specifically disclose:
perform one of: authenticating the access attempt based on the hand-held authentication object corresponding to the user account; or denying the access attempt based on the hand-held authentication object not corresponding to the user account.
Nonetheless, this feature is well known in the art and would have been an obvious modification of the teachings disclosed by Zhang, as taught by Soryal.
Soryal discloses:
perform one of: authenticating the access attempt based on the hand-held authentication object corresponding to the user account; or denying the access attempt based on the hand-held authentication object not corresponding to the user account (in response to the live stream and the prerecorded video clip being determined to comprise a threshold similarity according to a similarity criterion, he user currently using the mobile device can be determined to be associated with the authorized user profile, unblocking access to the feature of the mobile device) (0021, lines 18-22; 0047, lines 17-21).
Given the teaching of Soryal, a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have readily recognized the desirability and advantages of modifying the teachings of Zhang with the teachings of Soryal by authenticating the access attempt. Please refer to the motivation recited above with respect to claims 1 and 15 as to why it is obvious to apply the teachings of Soryal to the teachings of Zhang.
As to claim 7, Zhang fails to specifically disclose:
obtain at least one of a device location or a device identifier associated with the user device; and
detect the trigger event based on detecting an abnormality associated with the device location or the device identifier.
Nonetheless, these features are well known in the art and would have been an obvious modification of the teachings disclosed by Zhang, as taught by Soryal.
Soryal discloses:
obtain at least one of a device location or a device identifier associated with the user device (0033, lines 14-27); and
detect the trigger event based on detecting an abnormality associated with the device location or the device identifier (0033, lines 28-31; 0034, lines 1-6; 0035, lines 1-5).
Given the teaching of Soryal, a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have readily recognized the desirability and advantages of modifying the teachings of Zhang with the teachings of Soryal by detecting an event associated with a device location. Please refer to the motivation recited above with respect to claims 1 and 15 as to why it is obvious to apply the teachings of Soryal to the teachings of Zhang.
As to claim 8, Zhang fails to specifically disclose:
provide, to the user device, a credential associated with enabling the trusted device to perform the live identity verification challenge; obtain, from the trusted device, the credential; analyze the credential; and enable the trusted device to perform the live identity verification challenge based on the credential being valid.
Nonetheless, these features are well known in the art and would have been an obvious modification of the teachings disclosed by Zhang, as taught by Soryal.
Soryal discloses:
provide, to the user device, a credential associated with enabling the trusted device to perform the live identity verification challenge; obtain, from the trusted device, the credential; analyze the credential; and enable the trusted device to perform the live identity verification challenge based on the credential being valid (0053, lines 1-5, 13-16).
Given the teaching of Soryal, a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have readily recognized the desirability and advantages of modifying the teachings of Zhang with the teachings of Soryal by providing a credential to perform identity verification. Please refer to the motivation recited above with respect to claims 1 and 15 as to why it is obvious to apply the teachings of Soryal to the teachings of Zhang.
As to claim 9, Zhang in view of Soryal fails to specifically disclose:
classify a weight, material, and shading of the hand-held authentication object using one or more image libraries of different objects with corresponding classifications.
Nonetheless, this feature is well known in the art and would have been an obvious modification of the teachings disclosed by Zhang in view of Soryal, as taught by Weninger.
Weninger discloses:
classify a weight (i.e. size), material, and shading of the hand-held authentication object using one or more image libraries of different objects with corresponding classifications (page 3, lines 12-16; page 10, lines 34-page 11, line 1).
Given the teaching of Weninger, a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have readily recognized the desirability and advantages of modifying the teachings of Zhang in view of Soryal with the teachings of Weninger by classifying a weight, material, and shading of the object. Please refer to the motivation recited above with respect to claims 1 and 15 as to why it is obvious to apply the teachings of Weninger to the teachings of Zhang in view of Soryal.
As to claim 10, Zhang fails to specifically disclose:
wherein the credential is a quick response (QR) code.
Nonetheless, this feature is well known in the art and would have been an obvious modification of the teachings disclosed by Zhang, as taught by Soryal.
Soryal discloses:
wherein the credential is a quick response (QR) code (0058, lines 17-19).
Given the teaching of Soryal, a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have readily recognized the desirability and advantages of modifying the teachings of Zhang with the teachings of Soryal by using a QR code. Please refer to the motivation recited above with respect to claims 1 and 15 as to why it is obvious to apply the teachings of Soryal to the teachings of Zhang.
As to claim 11, Zhang discloses:
wherein the one or more tasks include providing a live user image of the access requester using the camera of the trusted device (0035),
wherein the digital evidence includes the live user image (0035-0037), and
wherein the one or more processors are configured to analyze, using the machine learning model, the live user image to enable the trusted device to perform the live identity verification challenge based on the live user image being associated with the authorized user (0021, lines 1-13; 0053, lines 1-20).
As to clam 12, Zhang in view of Soryal fails to specifically disclose
classify a color and material of the hand-held authentication object using one or more image libraries of different objects.
Nonetheless, this feature is well known in the art and would have been an obvious modification of the teachings disclosed by Zhang in view of Soryal, as taught by Weninger.
Weninger discloses:
classify a color and material of the hand-held authentication object using one or more image libraries of different objects (page 3, lines 12-16; page 10, lines 34-37).
Given the teaching of Weninger, a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have readily recognized the desirability and advantages of modifying the teachings of Zhang in view of Soryal with the teachings of Weninger by classifying a weight, material, and shading of the object. Please refer to the motivation recited above with respect to claims 1 and 15 as to why it is obvious to apply the teachings of Weninger to the teachings of Zhang in view of Soryal.
As to claim 14, Zhang discloses:
wherein the user device and the trusted device are different devices (Figure 3).
As to claim 20, Zhang discloses:
one or more memories (0074, lines 3-8); and
one or more processors, communicatively coupled to the one or more memories, configured to (0074, lines 3-8):
detect an authentication event associated with an access attempt for the user account, the authentication event being initiated by an access requester from a user device (0030, lines 5-13);
initiate a live identity verification challenge based on detecting a trigger event associated with the authentication event (0030, lines 13-16);
generate one or more prompts for the live identity verification challenge, the one or more prompts indicating one or more tasks to be performed by the access requester (0035, lines 1-4);
execute the live identity verification challenge by prompting the access requester, with the one or more prompts, to perform the one or more tasks using a camera of a trusted device, the user device and the trusted device being different devices, wherein the one or more tasks include providing a live object image of the object using the camera (0035-0037; Figure 3);
determine whether live digital evidence, associated with the authentication event and obtained after the one or more prompts, is received from the trusted device (0035-0037).
Zhang fails to specifically disclose:
obtain one or more enrollment images of a hand-held authentication object based on an enrollment event;
classify, using a machine learning model, the hand-held authentication object as appropriate or inappropriate for being used for authentication based on the one or more enrollment images based on a size of the hand-held authentication object, and based on a type of the hand-held authentication object;
hand-held authentication object;
perform one of: authenticating the access attempt based on the live digital evidence being received from the trusted device; or denying the access attempt based on the live digital evidence not being received from the trusted device.
Nonetheless, these features are well known in the art and would have been an obvious modification of the teachings disclosed by Zhang, as taught by Soryal.
Soryal discloses:
perform one of: authenticating the access attempt based on the live digital evidence being received from the trusted device; or denying the access attempt based on the live digital evidence not being received from the trusted device (0021, lines 18-22; 0047, lines 17-21).
Given the teaching of Soryal, a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have readily recognized the desirability and advantages of modifying the teachings of Zhang with the teachings of Soryal by authenticating the access attempt. Please refer to the motivation recited above with respect to claims 1 and 15 as to why it is obvious to apply the teachings of Soryal to the teachings of Zhang.
Zhang in view of Soryal fails to specifically disclose:
obtain one or more enrollment images of a hand-held authentication object based on an enrollment event;
classify, using a machine learning model, the hand-held authentication object as appropriate or inappropriate for being used for authentication based on the one or more enrollment images based on a size of the hand-held authentication object, and based on a type of the hand-held authentication object;
hand-held authentication object.
Nonetheless, these features are well known in the art and would have been an obvious modification of the teachings disclosed by Zhang in view of Soryal, as taught by Weninger.
Weninger discloses a system and method for material authentication, the system and method having:
obtain one or more enrollment images of a hand-held authentication object based on an enrollment event (page 3, lines 9-10, 14-15; page 14, lines 28-35);
classify, using a machine learning model, the hand-held authentication object as appropriate or inappropriate for being used for authentication based on the one or more enrollment images based on a size of the hand-held authentication object, and based on a type of the hand-held authentication object;
hand-held authentication object (page 3, lines 22-25).
Given the teaching of Weninger, a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have readily recognized the desirability and advantages of modifying the teachings of Zhang in view of Soryal with the teachings of Weninger by classifying a hand-held object based on size and type. Please refer to the motivation recited above with respect to claims 1 and 15 as to why it is obvious to apply the teachings of Weninger to the teachings of Zhang in view of Soryal.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang in view of Soryal and Weninger as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Nechyba et al. (US Patent 8,254,647 B1 and Nechyba hereinafter.
As to claim 6, Zhang in view of Soryal and Weninger fails to specifically disclose:
detect the enrollment event, the enrollment event being initiated by the authorized user of the user account;
perform one of: accepting the authentication object for being used for authentication based on the authentication object being appropriate; or rejecting the authentication object for being used for authentication based on the authentication object being inappropriate.
Nonetheless, these features are well known in the art and would have been an obvious modification of the teachings disclosed by Zhang in view of Soryal and Weninger, as taught by Nechyba.
Nechyba discloses a system and method for facial image quality assessment, the system and method having:
detect the enrollment event, the enrollment event being initiated by the authorized user of the user account (col. 3, line 67-col. 4, line 2);
perform one of: accepting the authentication object for being used for authentication based on the authentication object being appropriate; or rejecting the authentication object for being used for authentication based on the authentication object being inappropriate (col. 5, lines 5-8).
Given the teaching of Nechyba, a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have readily recognized the desirability and advantages of modifying the teachings of Zhang in view of Soryal and Weninger with the teachings of Nechyba by accepting appropriate enrollment images. Nechyba recites motivation by disclosing that evaluating the quality of enrollment images and capturing suitable images to be used for authentication ensures authorized user access and prevents low quality images which may result in unauthorized access (col. 5, lines 5-14). It is obvious that the teachings of Nechyba would have improved the teachings of Zhang in view of Soryal and Weninger by evaluating the quality of enrollment images in order to ensure authorized access.
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang in view of Soryal and Weninger as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Agrawal et al. (US 2025/0053626 A1 and Agrawal hereinafter).
As to claim 13, Zhang in view of Soryal and Weninger fails to specifically disclose:
wherein the trusted device is associated with at least one of a trusted location or a trusted device identifier.
Nonetheless, these features are well known in the art and would have been an obvious modification of the teachings disclosed by Zhang in view of Soryal and Weninger, as taught by Agrawal.
Agrawal discloses a system and method for providing dynamic authentication and authorization, the system and method having:
wherein the trusted device is associated with at least one of a trusted location or a trusted device identifier (0055, lines 7-15).
Given the teaching of Agrawal, a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have readily recognized the desirability and advantages of modifying the teachings of Zhang in view of Soryal and Weninger with the teachings of Agrawal by using a trusted device associated with a trusted location. Agrawal recites motivation by disclosing using a trusted device in a trusted location increases security by only providing access to devices in a secure location (0055). It is obvious that the teachings of Agrawal would have improved the teachings of Zhang in view of Soryal and Weninger by using a trusted device in a trusted location in order to increase security and only provide access to devices in a secure location.
Prior Art Made of Record
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Paul et al. (US 2022/0237274 A1) discloses a system and method for biometric authentication.
Wu et al. (CA 3030015 A1) discloses a system and method for spoofing attack detection during live image capture.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SARAH SU whose telephone number is (571)270-3835. The examiner can normally be reached 6:30 AM - 3:00 PM.
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, Lynn Feild can be reached at 571-272-2092. 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.
/SARAH SU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2431
Prosecution Insights