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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitations are: storing unit, adjusting unit, confirming unit, determining unit in claims 1 - 8.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
Claim 1 - 10 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.
Claim 1 states in line 3 “in face authentication“ and in line 5 “when face authentication” but it is unclear based on how the claims are written if the two instances of face authentication are the same. Due to the face authentication wording being indefinite, the claim is rejected. All claims that depend on claim 1 (claims 1- 8) also inherit the rejection over being indefinite. Additionally claims 9- 10 recite the same limitations as claim 1, therefore the face authentication wording is unclear, therefore the claims are rejected over being indefinite.
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)(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.
(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, 5, 6 and 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 20150371098 (hereinafter referred to as Ishii).
Regarding claim 1, Ishii teaches a processing apparatus comprising: a storing unit that stores a false authentication score [See paragraph 0039 which teaches a storage unit for authentication data, and 0012 which teaches a identity fraud probability (false authentication score)],
PNG
media_image1.png
362
1188
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
163
1178
media_image2.png
Greyscale
which is a score calculated when it is determined that false authentication has occurred in face authentication, into a storage device [see 0012 above where the identity fraud user probability the likelihood that a person is fraudulently pretending to be a registered person (i.e. false authentication)]; and an adjusting unit that adjusts a value used when face authentication is performed based on the false authentication score [See paragraph 0017 and 0011 where the determination is adjusted based on the identity fraud probability (false authentication score), this is done by adjusting the degree of similarity of biological data (including face information) by the score calculation unit (adjusting unit)].
PNG
media_image3.png
72
947
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
85
928
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Ishii teaches the processing apparatus according to claim 1, further comprising a confirming unit that confirms whether false authentication has occurred by performing confirmation different from face authentication on an authentication target person in face authentication, [see 0039 above where authentication is multimodal and use other biological information such as iris scan, fingerprint, or hand images, not just face authentication]. wherein the storing unit stores the false authentication score in accordance with a result of the confirmation by the confirming unit [See 0039 above where data is stored in the storage device, this includes the false authentication score as result of a confirmation unit (score calculation unit)].
Regarding claim 3, Ishii teaches the processing apparatus according to claim 2, wherein: the confirming unit confirms whether false authentication has occurred by confirming whether a person identified by face authentication is the authentication target person [See paragraph 0035 where the determination unit (confirmation unit) determines if the person being verified is the target person, or someone fraudulently pretending to be them, and 0039 where the biological information could be facial recognition]; and the storing unit stores the false authentication score in accordance with the result of the confirmation by the confirming unit. [See 0039 above where data is stored of the biological information, as result of the confirming unit (determination unit)].
PNG
media_image5.png
85
948
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 5, Ishii teaches the processing apparatus according to claim 3, wherein the confirming unit confirms whether the person identified by face authentication is the authentication target person when it is determined that authentication is successful in face authentication [See paragraph 0035 above where identity verification using facial recognition (see 0039) determines if the target person is present, or if someone is fraudulently pretending to be the target person (where face authentication could also be successful)].
Regarding claim 6, Ishii teaches the processing apparatus according to claim 3, further comprising a determining unit that determines whether to perform the confirmation by the confirming unit based on a given condition determined in advance [See paragraph 0033 and 0034 where the probability calculation unit [determining unit] calculates if spoofing may be occurring (a given condition), and this score is used to determine if identity verification should be confirmed using the determining unit of Ishii].
PNG
media_image6.png
80
1048
media_image6.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image7.png
106
1050
media_image7.png
Greyscale
wherein the confirming unit performs the confirmation in accordance with a result of the determination by the determining unit [See fig 3 where the confirming unit (determine, step 105) is performed in accordance to the determining unit (Calculate, step 103 and calculation unit above)].
PNG
media_image8.png
626
515
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Claims 9 and 10 are similarly analyzed to claim 1.
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.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishii in view of “Multi-modal Multi-layer Fusion Network with Average Binary Center Loss for Face Anti-spoofing” (hereinafter referred to as Kuang).
Regarding claim 4, ishii teaches the processing apparatus according to claim 3, wherein: the storing unit stores a false acceptance score, which is a score calculated when false authentication based on a face image of another person has been performed, as the false authentication score [see 0039 above where the data is stored and 0044 where a identity fraud probability is calculated (false authentication score), indicating that the facial authentication matches, but there is a possibility of fraud happening];
Ishii also does teach an adjusting unit [See 0011 above where a score calculation unit adjusts the degree of similarity to biological data] and a threshold [See 0064 where a threshold value L determined]
PNG
media_image9.png
245
1009
media_image9.png
Greyscale
However, Ishii does not explicitly teach that the threshold is adjusted based on the false acceptance score.
Kuang does teach adjusting a threshold value used when face authentication is performed based on the false acceptance score. [See page 53 section 4.2 where the false positive rate (false acceptance score) is used to select a suitable threshold].
PNG
media_image10.png
485
589
media_image10.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the multimodal approach to determine identity of Ishii with the adjusting of a threshold value to categorize if proper authentication occurred of Kuang. The motivation to combine would been to have a dynamic recognition model that uses the collected data of false positives/ negatives to adjust the threshold needed to be reached to accurately authenticate a user.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishii in view of AI-Driven Adaptive Authentication for Multi-Modal Biometric Systems (hereinafter referred to as Durgaraju).
Regarding claim 7, Ishii teaches the confirming unit the confirming unit confirms whether false authentication has occurred by accepting input of predetermined [see 0039 where biological data is stored. This data is used by the determining unit (confirming unit) to identify the target person].
Ishii does not teach that the predetermined input is encrypted.
Durgaraju teaches a method of performing facial authentication, and does teach that the predetermined information is encrypted [See page 84 section 6.3 where the biometric information is encrypted]
PNG
media_image11.png
266
1399
media_image11.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the obtaining of information from the target person of Ishii with the encryption of biometric information of Durgaraju. The motivation to combine is to ensure data privacy for the information collected from the user.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishii in view Durgaraju in further view of Kuang.
Regarding claim 8, Ishii and Durgaraju teach the processing apparatus according to claim 7 of using face authentication for identifying a target user. Ishii teaches that the storing unit stores collected data [See 0039 of Ishii above] and that a false authentication score is calculated [See Ishii above where a fraud probability is calculated]. Durgaraju also teaches that a false rejection score is calculated [See page 85 where the false rejection score is calculated]. Durgaraju also teaches that the data collected from recent authentication history is used so the threshold is dynamically adjusted by an adjusting unit [See Durgaraju section 3.2 page 81].
PNG
media_image12.png
610
983
media_image12.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image13.png
204
1305
media_image13.png
Greyscale
Ishii and Durgaraju do not explicitly state that the false rejection score data is used to adjust a threshold value.
Kuang does teach that the threshold value adjusted based off of the false rejection score [See section 4.2 of page 53 of Kuang above where the false negative rate is used as a metric to adjust the threshold].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the authentication method of Ishii with a variable threshold that is dynamically adjusted based off of metrics (as seen in Durgaraju) with the metrics including the false negative rate (as seen in Kuang). The motivation to combine is to reduce the error rate in the authentication.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Contact information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANUSHA KASHYAPA whose telephone number is (571)272-8766. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-5pm.
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, Chan Park can be reached at (571) 272-7409. 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.
/ANUSHA KASHYAPA/Examiner, Art Unit 2669 /CHAN S PARK/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2669
