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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) filed on 2/28/2025 was considered and placed on the file of record by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-5, 8, 11, 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Dependent claims 6, 7, 9, 10, 13 are rejected based on their dependency.
Regarding Claim 1, the following claim elements “then the quality of the captured image is consider as acceptable” is grammatically indefinite.
The following claim 1 highlighted elements are vague and indefinite because the term “substantially” is not properly defined; “identifying at least two regions of the captured image, the identified regions forming substantially the complete area of the identification document”
Regarding Claims 2 and 5, there is no antecedent basis for “the different text fields”.
Regarding claim 3, the phrase "such as" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Regarding claim 4, the elements contradict the acceptable quality threshold mechanism. Claim 1 uses a count of regions having at least one detected text field, and claim 4 states using specific pre-determined fields in specific regions.
Regarding claim 8, the “identity document” and “the image” are inconsistent with “identification document” and “the captured image” in claim 1. Also, “the number and type of text fields” lack antecedent basis, claim 1 did not establish types of text fields.
Regarding claim 11, the following claim elements are vague and indefinite “…module configured to:… determining the quality of the captured image by the method according to claim 1” because the claim is an improper hybrid product and process claim. MPEP 2173.05(p)II states that a single claim which claims both an apparatus and the method steps of using the apparatus is indefinite.
Also, “the electronic device” in claim 11 lacks antecedent basis.
The phrase “determining the quality…” is grammatically inconsistent with “receive an image…”
Regarding claim 12, the following claim language is written as an improper independent claim that incorporates claim 11 “using a module according to claim 11”. If claim 12 is intended to be dependent on claim 11, it must be drafted in standard dependent format under MPEP 608.01(n).
The following claim 12 language “determine, by itself or through a backend service…” and “verify, by itself or through a backend service…” are vague and indefinite because the claim states two interchangeable alternatives for the device’s configuration, therefore it is impossible for a person skilled in the art to determine what hardware or architecture the “electronic device” must possess to infringe or practice the claim. Also, the phrase “through a backend service” are actions that are executed by an external, unclaimed system. Therefore, the claim 12 device language is ambiguous and unclear.
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 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Thompson et al. (US 2016/0328610).
Regarding claim 1, Thompson teaches a method for determining the quality of a captured image of an identification document (see para. 0041, Thompson discusses calculating a confidence score of document information from an OCR scan), wherein the identification document comprises machine-recognizable text fields, the method comprising the following steps:
identifying at least two regions of the captured image, the identified regions forming substantially the complete area of the identification document (see figure 6, para. 0043, Thompson discusses OCR scan of a document),
applying a text recognition function to the captured image and registering the text fields detected associated with each region (see figure 6, para. 0043, Thompson discusses optical character recognition (OCR) performed on a scanned image of a first identification document),
determining whether at least one text field has been detected per region (see figure 6, para. 0043, 0187, Thompson discusses optical character recognition (OCR) performed on a scanned image of a first identification document), and
if at least one text field has been detected in a number of regions greater than a pre-established number, then the quality of the captured image is consider as acceptable (see figure 6, para. 0041, 0069-0070, Thompson discusses calculating confidence values that indicates the validity of the document; see para. 0187, Thompson discusses acceptable amount of mismatch to which correction may be applied e.g. correction may be applied to mismatches of less than a maximum threshold number of characters, a maximum percentage of characters).
Regarding claim 2, Thompson teaches wherein at least some of the different text fields detectable on the captured image are known beforehand (see figure 6, para. 0187, Thompson discusses predefined conditions).
Regarding claim 3, Thompson teaches wherein the text fields are generic text fields associated with identity documents such as name, surname, date of birth, nationality, passport, etc (see para. 0043, Thompson discusses optical character recognition (OCR) performed on a scanned image of a first identification document).
Regarding claim 4, Thompson teaches wherein the quality of the captured image is acceptable when pre-determined text fields are found in specific regions (see figure 6, para. 0187, Thompson discusses acceptable amount of mismatch to which correction may be applied e.g. correction may be applied to mismatches of less than a maximum threshold number of characters, a maximum percentage of characters).
Regarding claim 5, Thompson teaches wherein at least some of the different text fields detectable on the captured image have an unknown meaning (see figure 6, para. 0187, Thompson discusses mismatches and errors in the OCR image).
Regarding claim 6, Thompson teaches wherein the number of regions are at least 4 or at least 6 (see para. 0058, 0063, Thompson discusses six or more different types of regions in document).
Regarding claim 7, Thompson teaches wherein each region of the captured image covers a similar area of the identification document (see figure 6, para. 0072, Thompson discusses identification of a mismatch in expected similar or identical values in the first and complementary documents).
Regarding claim 8, Thompson teaches wherein the number and type of text fields detected per region is further processed for classifying the identity document of the image (see para. 0046, Thompson discusses identifier may include any aspect of the first document that can be used for purposes of identification).
Regarding claim 9, Thompson teaches wherein applying a text recognition function to the captured image comprises searching for objects on the captured image, identifying those related to semantic fields, and recognizing the text thereof (see para. 0047, Thompson discusses scanning one or more portions of the first document related to text regions).
Regarding claim 10, Thompson teaches wherein the text recognition function is an optical character recognition (OCR) function (see figure 6, para. 0022, 0043, Thompson discusses OCR scan of a document).
Regarding claim 11, Thompson teaches Electronic device-based module for determining the quality of a captured image of an identification document, wherein the module is configured to: receive an image of an identification document captured by the electronic device (see figure 6, para. 0022, 0043, Thompson discusses OCR scan of a document), and determining the quality of the captured image by the method according to claim 1 (see figure 6, para. 0022, 0043, Thompson discusses OCR scan of a document).
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 factual inquiries 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 12, 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thompson et al. (US 2016/0328610) in view of Benkreira et al. (US 2020/0042773).
Regarding claim 12, Thompson does not expressly disclose electronic device configured to: receive a request for user identity verification, capture an image or a video stream of an identification document and selecting one image frame thereof, determine, by itself or through a backend service, the quality of the captured image by using a module according to claim 11, and verify, by itself or through a backend service, the identity of the user by extracting and analyzing the information contained in the identification document captured and comparing it with user's data inputted separately.
However, Benkreira teaches electronic device configured to: receive a request for user identity verification (see figure 1, Benkreira discusses user identification request),
capture an image or a video stream of an identification document and selecting one image frame thereof (see figure 1, Benkreira discusses capturing image of an identification document),
determine, by itself or through a backend service, the quality of the captured image by using a module according to claim 11 (see figure 1, Benkreira discusses a server to process the identification document), and
verify, by itself or through a backend service, the identity of the user by extracting and analyzing the information contained in the identification document captured and comparing it with user's data inputted separately (see figure 1, Benkreira discusses server that verifies the identity of a user based on captured image of an identification document and user).
Motivation to combine may be gleaned from the prior art considered. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of Thompson with Benkreira to derive at the invention of claim 12. The result would have been expected, routine, and predictable in order to perform user identification.
The determination of obviousness is predicated upon the following: One skilled in the art would have been motivated to modify Thompson in this manner in order to improve user identification by capturing image of a user and identification document to perform a verification process. Furthermore, the prior art collectively includes each element claimed (though not all in the same reference), and one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements in this manner explained using known engineering design, interface and/or programming techniques, without changing a fundamental operating principle of Thompson, while the teaching of Benkreira continues to perform the same function as originally taught prior to being combined, in order to produce the repeatable and predictable result of comparing information from images of a user and identity document to properly perform user verification. The Thompson and Benkreira systems perform image recognition, therefore a person having ordinary skill in the art would have reasonable expectation of success in the combination yielding predictable results. It is for at least the aforementioned reasons that the examiner has reached a conclusion of obviousness with respect to the claim in question.
Regarding claim 12, Benkreira teaches wherein the user's data inputted separately comprises a picture of user's face or user's authenticated data stored remotely (see figure 1, Benkreira discusses server that verifies the identity of a user based on captured image of an identification document and user).
The same motivation of claim 12 is applied to claim 13. Motivation to combine may be gleaned from the prior art considered. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of Thompson with Benkreira to derive at the invention of claim 13. The result would have been expected, routine, and predictable in order to perform user identification.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Jones et al. (US 8,627,939) discusses determining whether incomplete identifier character information is acceptable because the number of wildcard characters is less than the threshold number for that document type.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KENNY A CESE whose telephone number is (571) 270-1896. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday – Friday, 9am – 4pm.
If attempts to reach the primary examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Gregory Morse can be reached on (571) 272-3838. 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). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Kenny A Cese/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2663
