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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-25 are pending in this application.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statement(s) submitted by applicant on 7/2/2025 have been considered. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Form PTO-1449 signed and attached hereto.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claim(s) 1-11,13-23,25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Jurgens et al(EP 3575993).
Claim 1: Jurgens disclose obtaining video frames and/or still image frames acquired using a camera of a mobile device, the video frames and/or the still image frames including images of a user and/or an identification document in (paragraph[0009]: the recording device records at least one watermarked identification video capturing biometric features of the user and/or a personal identification document of the user including at least one user-related liveness check, wherein the at least one identification video is watermarked). Jurgens disclose obtaining inertial data acquired using an inertial measurement unit (IMU) of the mobile device during the digital identity verification session; and determining, using the video frames and/or the still image frames and the inertial data, whether the digital identity verification session is subject to the injection attack in(paragraph[0009];paragraph[0013]: at least one identification video is watermarked, wherein during the recording of the identification video, the recording device generates physical watermarking signals according to a unique or quasi-unique watermarking specification wherein the physical watermarking signals enters the audio track and/or the video track by means of physical oscillations generated by a speaker device and recorded by a microphone, a camera and/or an accelerometer of the recording device. The quasi-unique watermark specifications are usually generated or selected by the server device and validated, preferably by the same entity on the recorded watermarked video data to ensure that the recorded information was not tampered with in any way and that the recording was performed at the time of identification).
Claim 2: Jurgens disclose inertial data is acquired by the IMU of the mobile device concurrently with acquisition of the video frames and/or the still image frames by the camera of the mobile device in (paragraph[0009]).
Claim 3: Jurgens disclose determining whether the digital identity verification session is subject to the injection attack comprises correlating the video frames and/or the still image frames with the inertial data in (paragraph[0033]).
Claim 4: Jurgens disclose embedding the inertial data in metadata of correlated video frames and/or correlated still image frames in (paragraph[0029]).
Claim 5: Jurgens disclose the digital identity verification session is subject to the injection attack comprises determining, using the inertial data, that the user made micromovements while holding the mobile device during acquisition of the video frames and/or the still image frames in (paragraph[0034-0035]).
Claim 6: Jurgens disclose the video frames and/or the still image frames further comprises displaying, using a display device of the mobile device, instructions for the user to move the mobile device in (paragraph[0039]).
Claim 7: Jurgens disclose determining, using inertial data and/or video and/or still image frames acquired in a time window extending for a period after displaying the instructions to move the mobile device, that the user moved the mobile device in (paragraph[0039-0040]).
Claim 8: Jurgens disclose determining, using video frames and/or still image frames acquired while the user moved the mobile device according to the displayed instructions, whether the video frames and/or the still image frames comprise frames affected by motion blur in (paragraph[0034]).
Claim 9: Jurgens disclose determining, using inertial data acquired while the user moved the mobile device according to the displayed instructions, that the user moved the mobile device according to the displayed instructions in (paragraph[0039]).
Claim 10: Jurgens disclose obtaining the video frames and/or the still image frames further comprises displaying, using the display device of the mobile device, instructions for the user to hold the mobile device still in (paragraph[0039-0040]).
Claim 11: Jurgens disclose using inertial data and/or the video frames and/or the still image frames acquired in a time window extending for a period after displaying the instructions to hold the mobile device still, that the user held the mobile device still in (paragraph[0039-0040]).
Claim 13: Jurgens disclose at least one processor and at least one non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions which, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to perform a method of detecting an injection attack during a digital identity verification session in (fig.1; paragraph[0052]). Jurgens disclose obtaining video frames and/or still image frames acquired using a camera of a mobile device, the video frames and/or the still image frames including images of a user and/or an identification document in (paragraph[0009]: the recording device records at least one watermarked identification video capturing biometric features of the user and/or a personal identification document of the user including at least one user-related liveness check, wherein the at least one identification video is watermarked). Jurgens disclose obtaining inertial data acquired using an inertial measurement unit (IMU) of the mobile device during the digital identity verification session; and determining, using the video frames and/or the still image frames and the inertial data, whether the digital identity verification session is subject to the injection attack in(paragraph[0009];paragraph[0013]: at least one identification video is watermarked, wherein during the recording of the identification video, the recording device generates physical watermarking signals according to a unique or quasi-unique watermarking specification wherein the physical watermarking signals enters the audio track and/or the video track by means of physical oscillations generated by a speaker device and recorded by a microphone, a camera and/or an accelerometer of the recording device. The quasi-unique watermark specifications are usually generated or selected by the server device and validated, preferably by the same entity on the recorded watermarked video data to ensure that the recorded information was not tampered with in any way and that the recording was performed at the time of identification).
Claim 14: Jurgens disclose inertial data is acquired by the IMU of the mobile device concurrently with acquisition of the video frames and/or the still image frames by the camera of the mobile device in (paragraph[0009]).
Claim 15: Jurgens disclose determining whether the digital identity verification session is subject to the injection attack comprises correlating the video frames and/or the still image frames with the inertial data in (paragraph[0033]).
Claim 16: Jurgens disclose embedding the inertial data in metadata of correlated video frames and/or correlated still image frames in (paragraph[0029]).
Claim 17: Jurgens disclose the digital identity verification session is subject to the injection attack comprises determining, using the inertial data, that the user made micromovements while holding the mobile device during acquisition of the video frames and/or the still image frames in (paragraph[0034-0035]).
Claim 18: Jurgens disclose the video frames and/or the still image frames further comprises displaying, using a display device of the mobile device, instructions for the user to move the mobile device in (paragraph[0039]).
Claim 19: Jurgens disclose determining, using inertial data and/or video and/or still image frames acquired in a time window extending for a period after displaying the instructions to move the mobile device, that the user moved the mobile device in (paragraph[0039-0040]).
Claim 20: Jurgens disclose determining, using video frames and/or still image frames acquired while the user moved the mobile device according to the displayed instructions, whether the video frames and/or the still image frames comprise frames affected by motion blur in (paragraph[0034]).
Claim 21: Jurgens disclose determining, using inertial data acquired while the user moved the mobile device according to the displayed instructions, that the user moved the mobile device according to the displayed instructions in (paragraph[0039]).
Claim 22: Jurgens disclose obtaining the video frames and/or the still image frames further comprises displaying, using the display device of the mobile device, instructions for the user to hold the mobile device still in (paragraph[0039-0040]).
Claim 23: Jurgens disclose using inertial data and/or the video frames and/or the still image frames acquired in a time window extending for a period after displaying the instructions to hold the mobile device still, that the user held the mobile device still in (paragraph[0039-0040]).
Claim 25: Jurgens disclose obtaining video frames and/or still image frames acquired using a camera of a mobile device, the video frames and/or the still image frames including images of a user and/or an identification document in (paragraph[0009]: the recording device records at least one watermarked identification video capturing biometric features of the user and/or a personal identification document of the user including at least one user-related liveness check, wherein the at least one identification video is watermarked). Jurgens disclose obtaining inertial data acquired using an inertial measurement unit (IMU) of the mobile device during the digital identity verification session; and determining, using the video frames and/or the still image frames and the inertial data, whether the digital identity verification session is subject to the injection attack in(paragraph[0009];paragraph[0013]: at least one identification video is watermarked, wherein during the recording of the identification video, the recording device generates physical watermarking signals according to a unique or quasi-unique watermarking specification wherein the physical watermarking signals enters the audio track and/or the video track by means of physical oscillations generated by a speaker device and recorded by a microphone, a camera and/or an accelerometer of the recording device. The quasi-unique watermark specifications are usually generated or selected by the server device and validated, preferably by the same entity on the recorded watermarked video data to ensure that the recorded information was not tampered with in any way and that the recording was performed at the time of identification).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 12,24 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
USPTO Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HOSUK SONG whose telephone number is (571)272-3857. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri: 7:30AM-5:00PM.
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, Amir Mehrmanesh can be reached 571-270-3351. 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.
/HOSUK SONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2435
Prosecution Insights