Office Action 4: Notice of Allowance (2024-07-19)

CLAIMS:
AMENDMENTS TO THE CLAIMS

This listing of claims will replace all prior versions, and listings, of claims in the application.

1\. (Currently Amended) An adaptive verification system comprising:a memory storing a plurality of animation templates; and
a processor, the processor configured to perform a first challenge process to:request a first user image from a first predetermined distance,
receive the first user image,
request a second user image from a second predetermined distance, the second predetermined distance being further away from a user than the first user image and capturing at least a portion of a background behind the user,
receive the second user image,
transmit the first user image and the second user image for a verification process, the verification process including identification of one or more user attributes and a confirmation of liveness based on the captured portion of the background in the second user image,
receive a third user image associated with the one or more user attributes identified during the verification, and
display an animated graphics interchange format (GIF) object of a generic person from the plurality of animation templates wherein the animated GIF is adapted to include the one or more user attributes in the third user image, the one or more attributes comprising a user skin tone, a user hair color, a body build, and a user eye color.

2\. (Original) The adaptive verification system of claim 1, wherein the processor is further

configured to subject receipt of each of the first user image and the second user image within a predetermined time.

3\. (Original) The adaptive verification system of claim 2, wherein the processor is further configured to delay the first challenge process if either of the first user image or the second user image are not received within the predetermined time.

4\. (Original) The adaptive verification system of claim 1, wherein the verification process further comprises comparison of the first user image and the second user image with reference data that includes user information.

5\. (Original) The adaptive verification system of claim 1, wherein the processor is further configured to display one or more instructions when requesting the first user image and the second user image.

6\. (Original) The adaptive verification system of claim 1, wherein the second predetermined distance exceeds the first predetermined distance.

7\. (Original) The adaptive verification system of claim 1, wherein the one or more user attributes includes at least one selected from the group of a skin or complexion tone, an eye color, a body build, and a hair color.

8\. (Original) The adaptive verification system of claim 1, wherein the processor is further configured to perform a second challenge process including verification of one or more user input credentials.

9\. (Original) The adaptive verification system of claim 1, wherein the processor is further configured to perform the first challenge process for one or more predetermined transactions.

10\. (Original) The adaptive verification system of claim 1, wherein the adaptation depicts a manner in which a user captures the first user image and the second user image.

11\. (Currently Amended) A method of adaptive verification, the method comprising the steps of:requesting, by a processor, a first user image from a first predetermined distance;
receiving, by the processor, the first user image;
requesting, by the processor, a second user image from a second predetermined distance, the second predetermined distance being further away from a user than the first user image and capturing at least a portion of a background behind the user;
receiving, by the processor, the second user image;
transmitting, by the processor, the first user image and the second user image for a verification process, the verification process including identification of one or more user attributes and a confirmation of liveness based on the captured portion of the background in the second user image;
receiving, by the processor, a third user image associated with the one or more user attributes identified during the verification; and
displaying, by the processor, an animated graphics interchange format (GIF) object of a generic person from a plurality of animation templates wherein the animated GIF is adapted to include the one or more user attributes in the third user image, the one or more attributes comprising a user skin tone, a user hair color, a body build, and a user eye color.

12\. (Original) The method of claim 11, further comprising subjecting, by the processor, receipt of each of the first user image and the second user image within a predetermined time.

13\. (Original) The method of claim 12, further comprising delaying, by the processor, the verification process if either of the first user image or the second user image are not received within the predetermined time.

14\. (Original) The method of claim 11, wherein the verification process further comprises

comparison of the first user image and the second user image with reference data that includes user information.

15\. (Original) The method of claim 11, further comprising displaying, by the processor, one or more instructions when requesting the first user image and the second user image.

16\. (Original) The method of claim 11, wherein the second predetermined distance exceeds the first predetermined distance.

17\. (Original) The method of claim 11, wherein the adaptation depicts a manner in which the user captures the first user image and the second user image.

18\. (Original) The method of claim 11, wherein the one or more user attributes includes at least one selected from the group of a skin or complexion tone, an eye color, a body build, and a hair color.

19\. (Original) The method of claim 11, further comprising performing, by the processor, the verification process for one or more predetermined transactions.

20\. (Currently Amended) A computer-readable non-transitory medium comprising computer- executable instructions that, when executed by at least one processor, perform procedures comprising the steps of:requesting a first user image from a first predetermined distance;
receiving the first user image;
requesting a second user image from a second predetermined distance, the second predetermined distance being further away from a user than the first user image and capturing at least a portion of a background behind the user;
receiving the second user image;
transmitting the first user image and the second user image for a verification process, the verification process including identification of one or more user attributes and a confirmation of

liveness based on the captured portion of the background in the second user image;receiving a third user image associated with the one or more user attributes identified during the verification; and
displaying, by the processor, an animated graphics interchange format (GIF) object of a generic person from the plurality of animation templates wherein the animated GIF is adapted to include the one or more user attributes in the third user image, the one or more attributes comprising a user skin tone, a user hair color, a body build, and a user eye color.

OFFICE ACTION:
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 .
Reasons for Allowance
Claims 1-20 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: The primary reason for allowance is that the prior art of record fails to teach or render obvious the following subject matter in combination with other elements of the independent claims as well as Applicant’s arguments of record as to the distinguishing claim features over the applied prior art: “the verification process including identification of one or more user attributes and a confirmation of liveness based on the captured portion of the background in the second user image, receive a third user image associated with the one or more user attributes identified during the verification, and display an animated graphics interchange format (GIF) object of a generic person from the plurality of animation templates wherein the animated GIF is adapted to include the one or more user attributes in the third user image, the one or more attributes comprising a user skin tone, a user hair color, a body build, and a user eye color”.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee.  Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion

APPLICANT REBUTTAL: REMARKS
The Non-Final Office Action has been reviewed and carefully considered. Claims 1-20 are currently pending and stand rejected. In this response, claims 1, 11, and 20 have been amended. Support for these amendments can be found in at least paragraphs [0036] and [0051] of the originally-filed specification and in the originally-filed claims. No new matter has been added.
In view of the foregoing amendments and following remarks, favorable reconsideration of the current rejections in the present application is respectfully requested.
I.
INTERVIEW SUMMARY
Applicant wishes to thank Examiner Corum for the courtesies extended during the phone interview conducted on July 1, 2024. In accordance with MPEP § 713.04, Applicant is providing this Interview Summary. The Interview Summary includes the information listed in subsections (A)
- (H) of MPEP § 713.04 under corresponding subsections herein:
(A) Exhibit.
Not applicable.
(B) Claims Discussed.
The claims of record and the rejections under §103 were generally
discussed.
(C) Prior Art.
The prior art of references were discussed.
(D) Proposed Amendments. Not applicable.
(E) Arguments.
Not applicable.
(F) Other Pertinent Matters. Not applicable.
(G) Results/Outcome.
The amendments reflected in this response were indicated as likely to
overcome the current rejection, but that additional searching would be required.
(H) Interview by Electronic Mail. Not applicable
II.
REJECTION UNDER 35 U.S.C.
§
Claims 1, 4-11 and 14-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C § 103 as allegedly being unpatentable over Tussy, U.S. Patent Publication No. 2021/0011986 ("Tussy") in view of Morgana et al., U.S. Patent Publication No. 2017/0270348 ("Morgana"). Applicant respectfully traverses each of these rejections.
Claims 2-3 and 12-13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C § 103 as allegedly being unpatentable over Tussy, U.S. Patent Publication No. 2021/0011986 ("Tussy") in view of Morgana et al., U.S. Patent Publication No. 2017/0270348 ("Morgana") and in further view of Kato et al., U.S. Patent Publication No. 2020/0143186 ("Kato"). Applicant respectfully traverses each of these rejections.
The Standard for Obviousness
Under 35 U.S.C. § 103, the Patent Office bears the burden of establishing a prima facie case of obviousness. In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 1074 (Fed. Cir. 1988). There are four separate factual inquiries to consider in making an obviousness determination: (1) the scope and content of the prior art; (2) the level of ordinary skill in the field of the invention; (3) the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art; and (4) the existence of any objective evidence, or "secondary considerations," of non-obviousness. Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17-18 (1966); see also KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727 (2007). A claimed invention combining multiple known elements is not rendered obvious simply because each element was known independently in the prior art. Id. at 1741. Rather, there must still be some "reason that would have prompted" a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine the elements in the specific way that he or she did. Id. Also, modification of a prior art reference may be obvious only if there exists a reason that would have prompted a person of ordinary skill to make the change. Id. at 1740-41.
Claim 1 is Not Obvious
The Office relies on Tussy as the primary reference in its § 103 rejection. Tussy relates to using images of a face for biometric authentication and discloses use of multiple facial images for the purpose of authenticating a user's identity. While Tussy's multiple facial images may include images at different distances, Tussy explains the need for such images as follows: "[w]hen an actual, three dimensional person images himself or herself close up and far away, it has been found that the biometric results are different due to the barrel distortion effect of the lens at the different distances." Tussy at  [0017]. Further, Tussy discloses that taking facial images at different distances "allows the user to have multiple biometric profiles." Id. Thus, Tussy, disclosure of images at different distances for the purpose of authentication in light of limitations in the camera lens and for maintaining multiple biometric profiles as a way in which to accommodate the limitations in the camera lens. Applicant's claimed embodiment, however, is not receiving two selfies at different distances for the purpose of accommodating limitations in the camera hardware and for maintaining multiple sets of biometric profiles.
Applicant's claim recites, inter alia, "display an animation of a generic person from the plurality of animation templates wherein the animation is adapted to include the one or more user attributes in the third user image, the one or more attributes comprising a user skin tone, a user hair color, a body build, and a user eye color." The Office alleges that Tussy discloses "display the third user image including an adaptation wherein the adaptation is generated for at least one of the plurality of animation templates." Office Action at 7. As an initial matter, Applicant respectfully notes that Applicant's claim does not recite this element, so the relevance of Tussy is unclear. Further, the Office alleges that Tussy discloses this element (that does not exist in Applicant's claim) because paragraph 17 states discusses "provid[ing] prompts on a video feedback display."
See id. In relevant part, paragraph 17 of Tussy discloses:
In some embodiments, the system may provide prompts on a video feedback display to aid the user in moving the device relative to the user's head during enrollment and / or authentication. The prompts may include ovals or frames displayed on the display screen in which the user must place his or her face by moving the mobile device until his or her face is within the oval or frame . The prompts may preferably
be of differing sizes and may also be centered on different positions of the screen . Tussy's prompting ovals or frames are depicted in Tussy as follows:
Providing positioning ovals or frames (which may be different shapes) is not equivalent to Applicant's claim element, which recites, "display an animation of a generic person from the plurality of animation templates wherein the animation is adapted to include the one or more user attributes in the third user image, the one or more attributes comprising a user skin tone, a user hair color, a body build, and a user eye color." It is clear that a oval or other shape is not an animation of a generic person much less a generic person adapted to include one or more user attributes. The Office's attempt to cure this deficiency by adding Morgana makes no sense within the context of Tussy. There is no way to adapt Tussy's guiding ovals/frames to instead be animated people (much less adapted with specific characteristics). If Tussy were changed to display animated people with any characteristics, then Tussy would no longer function for its intended purpose, which is to
provide a frame for taking a selfie, as explicitly illustrated in Tussy as follows:
Therefore, any attempt to combine Morgana with Tussy is improper under the MPEP at least because it renders Tussy unsatisfactory for its intended purpose. MPEP §2143.01(V).
It is clear that the impetus for this alleged combination is Applicant's claim. Applicant
respectfully asserts that the Office has relied upon improper hindsight of the very type the Federal Circuit has cautioned against - using the claims as a map to form the rejection. See Mintz v. Dietz & Watson, Inc., 679 F.3d 1372, 1377-78 (Fed. Cir. 2012)1; see also In re Fritch, 972 F.2d 1260
1 "This statement of the problem represents a form of prohibited reliance on hindsight. The district court has used the invention to define the problem that the invention solves. Often the inventive contribution lies in defining the problem in a new revelatory way. In other words, when someone is presented with the identical problem and told to make the patented invention, it often becomes virtually certain that the artisan will succeed in making the invention. Instead, PCM must prove by clear and convincing evidence that a person of ordinary skill in the meat encasement arts at the time of the invention would have recognized the adherence problem recognized by the inventors and found it obvious to produce the meat encasement structure disclosed in the '148 patent to solve that problem."
(Fed. Cir. 1992) ("it is impermissible to use the claimed invention as an instruction manual or 'template' to piece together the teachings of the prior art so that the claimed invention is rendered obvious"). Indeed, Applicant respectfully submits that simply finding all of the elements of a claimed embodiment in the prior art does not create a prima facie case of obviousness. As stated in Mintz, "[o]ften the inventive contribution lies in defining the problem in a new revelatory way." 679 F.3d at 1377-78. Applicant respectfully submits that the Office is improperly using Applicant's invention as the motivation for combination, and this is especially true given that the alleged combination makes no sense for Tussy.
Regardless, in an effort to advance prosecution, Applicant has further amended claim 1 to
recite, inter alia, "display an
animated
grap
hics interchange format (GIF) ob
j
ect
animation
of a generic person from the plurality of animation templates wherein the
animated GIF
animation
is adapted to include the one or more user attributes in the third user image, the one or more attributes comprising a user skin tone, a user hair color, a body build, and a user eye color." Applicant respectfully submits that neither of the references, either alone or in combination, disclose Applicant's amended claim element.
Accordingly, Applicant respectfully requests withdrawal of the pending rejection.
Independent Claims 11 and 20
Claims 11 and 20, while differing in overall scope from claim 1, recite similar subject matter to claim 1. Thus, the arguments set forth above with respect to claim 1 are similarly applicable to claims 11 and 20. Accordingly, Applicant respectfully submits that claims 11 and 20 are allowable over the cited art for at least analogous reasons as set forth above with respect to claim 1.
Dependent Claims Are Not Obvious
Regarding dependent claims 2-10 and 12-19, these claims are dependent upon independent claims 1 or 11. If an independent claim is nonobvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103, then any claim depending therefrom is nonobvious. In re Fine, 837 F.2d1071 (Fed. Cir. 1988). Thus, since independent claims 1 and 11 are allowable as discussed above, the dependent claims are also allowable at least by virtue of their dependency on independent claims 1 and 11.
Accordingly, Applicant respectfully submits that all claims are in a condition for allowance.
CONCLUSION