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 .
Claims 1-12 are pending.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-7, in the reply filed on 4/7/26 is acknowledged. Unelected claims 8-12 are withdrawn from consideration.1 Elected claims 1-7 will be examined as follows.
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.
Claims 1, 3, and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Choi, et al. (US 2023/0013380, herein Choi).2 Regarding claim 1, Choi teaches a computing device comprising: a communication unit (paragraph 0040: portable terminal); and data processor configured to receive identification card data transmitted from a user terminal through the communication unit (paragraph 0031), and detect forgery or alteration of an identification card included in the identification card data by using two or more of a moire pattern recognizing technology (paragraph 0058), a hand recognition technology, a facial comparison technology and a holographic technology (paragraph 0058). Regarding claim 3, Choi teaches the data processor detects whether or not a moire pattern exists on the identification card by using the moire pattern recognizing technology, determines that the identification card is invalid when the moire pattern exists on the identification card, detects whether or not a preset hologram exists on the identification card by using the holographic technology, and determines that the identification card is invalid when the preset hologram does not exist on the identification card (paragraph 0058). Regarding claim 7, Choi teaches a storage unit configured to store information of the identification card or a detected result of forgery or alteration (paragraph 0055); and a usage unit configured to utilize the detected result by the data processor, wherein the information of the identification card is classified to an image and a text and is stored in the storage unit when it is determined that the identification card is valid (paragraph 0070).
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.
Claims 2 and 4-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi in view of Ortega-Garcia, et al. (“Authentication gets personal with biometrics”, published in the IEEE Signal Processing Magazine, Vol. 21, Issue 2, March 2004, herein Ortega-Garcia).3 4 Regarding claim 2, Choi teaches the device of claim 1, as discussed above. Choi does not explicitly teach the data processor applies the facial comparison technology to the identification card after applying separately the moire pattern recognizing technology, the hand recognition technology and the holographic technology to the identification card. Ortega-Garcia teaches applying facial recognition comparison technology to the identification card (pages 53-54: Face Biometrics) and applying hand recognition technology (pages 54-55: Hand Biometrics). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to combine the teachings of Choi and Ortega-Garcia so that the application of the facial comparison technology to the identification card is after the separate application of the moire pattern recognizing technology, the hand recognition technology and the holographic technology to the identification card, because such a combination reinforces security all of stages of authentication (page 50 of Ortega-Garcia). Regarding claim 4, Ortega-Garcia further teaches the data processor detects joints of fingers holding the identification card through the hand recognition technology, detects posture of a hand through the detected joints, and determines that the identification card is invalid in an event that the detected posture is not a posture holding the identification card or a distance between corresponding joints is different from a real distance when a user is holding the identification card (page 51: Personal Authentication Through Biometrics). Regarding claim 5, Ortega-Garcia further teaches the data processor determines that the identification card is invalid when a face displayed on the identification card is different from a real face (pages 53-54: Face Biometrics). Regarding claim 6, Ortega-Garcia further teaches the data processor detects gender (page 55: Behavioral Biometrics) and age group as well as the face by analyzing the real face and determines that the identification card is invalid when the detected gender or the detected age group does not match with gender or age of the identification card even if the face displayed on the identification card is similar to the real face (pages 53-54: Face Biometrics).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW MIKELS whose telephone number is (571)270-5470. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Thursday 7:30 AM ET - 5:00 PM ET, Friday 7:30 AM ET - 11:30 AM ET, the Examiner is on central time.5
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, Michael G Lee can be reached at 571-272-2398. 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.
/MATTHEW MIKELS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2876
1 Applicant is reminded of rejoinder procedure as outlined in MPEP § 821.04. Rejoinder will be considered when appropriate.
2 In addition to the cited paragraphs, please see also the associated figures.
3 In addition to the cited portions, please see also the associated figures.
4 See 892 form for the full citation. A copy of this reference is attached to this Office Action.
5 The Examiner can also be reached at matthew.mikels@uspto.gov.
Prosecution Insights