Obviousness

To analyze the obviousness of US patent 11874910 under 35 U.S.C. § 103, we must consider whether the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA) before the effective filing date of the invention, given the scope and content of the prior art. This involves identifying the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art, and then determining if there would have been a motivation to combine the prior art references to achieve the claimed invention.

US patent 11874910 focuses on a facial recognition authentication system that includes "path parameters" for enhanced security. The system utilizes a mobile device's camera to capture enrollment and authentication images of a user's face, while simultaneously monitoring and recording the movement of the mobile device using sensors like an accelerometer, magnetometer, and gyroscope to define an "enrollment movement" or "authentication movement". This movement data, along with facial biometrics, is used to authenticate the user. The patent emphasizes preventing fraud attempts, such as using 2D images or videos to spoof the system.

A PHOSITA in this field would likely have a background in computer science, electrical engineering, or a related discipline, with experience in image processing, biometric authentication, and mobile device development.

The patent US11874910 lists "US9953149B2" as a prior art document with a priority date of August 28, 2014. Since this analysis relies solely on the provided patent text, we will examine how the general knowledge of the art, combined with the disclosures within US11874910 itself, could render certain claims obvious. For a complete obviousness analysis, a thorough review of US9953149B2 and other relevant prior art would be necessary.

Potential Obviousness Combinations and Rationales:

Let's consider the core inventive concept of US11874910: combining facial recognition with path parameters derived from mobile device movement for authentication.

Combination 1: General Knowledge of Facial Recognition + General Knowledge of Mobile Device Sensors

• Prior Art Elements:

  • Facial Recognition: The patent itself states that "Facial recognition processing is known in the art (or is an established process) and as a result, it is not described in detail herein" (US11874910, "Facial recognition processing" definition). This indicates that facial recognition, including facial detection and the creation of biometric data from facial features, was well-established prior art.
  • Mobile Device Sensors: The patent describes mobile devices commonly including accelerometers, magnetometers, and gyroscopes (US11874910, FIG. 2, elements 264, 268, 272). The functionality of these sensors to generate data regarding movement, orientation, and speed is also well-known in the art (US11874910, "path parameters" definition, "accelerometer 272 and gyroscope 264 generate and provide data to the processor 208 to indicate a movement path and orientation of the mobile device" definition).

• Motivation to Combine: A PHOSITA would have been motivated to combine these known elements to enhance the security of facial recognition systems on mobile devices.

  • Problem: Traditional 2D facial recognition is "considered unsecure because faces may be photographed or recorded, and then the resulting prints or video displays showing images of the user may be used to spoof the system" (US11874910, "two-dimensional facial recognition" definition).
  • Solution: Given the known vulnerability of 2D facial recognition to spoofing, a PHOSITA would naturally look for ways to introduce "liveness" detection or 3D authentication. Mobile device sensors were readily available and capable of detecting movement.
  • Rationale: The motivation would be to overcome the acknowledged limitations of 2D facial recognition by adding a layer of authentication that verifies the physical presence and movement of the user, rather than just a static image. By requiring a specific movement path during authentication, the system could differentiate a live user interacting with the device from a static image or video playback. The patent itself highlights this problem and solution: "the user may provide the necessary images...and may provide path parameters of the device while obtaining the images (“authentication movement”) to both confirm the identity of the user as well as the liveness and realness of that individual to ensure it is not a video, screen shot, or other representation of the person" (US11874910, "authentication movement" definition).

Combination 2: US9953149B2 + Mobile Device Sensors (Accelerometer, Gyroscope, Magnetometer)

Assuming US9953149B2 (priority date 2014-08-28) discloses a facial recognition authentication system, but without explicit reliance on mobile device movement sensors to generate "path parameters":

• Prior Art Elements:

  • US9953149B2: As a prior art reference with a related priority date, it likely teaches a facial recognition authentication system. For this analysis, we assume it establishes a baseline for facial recognition on mobile devices.
  • Mobile Device Sensors: As discussed above, the availability and functionality of accelerometers, gyroscopes, and magnetometers in mobile devices were well-known.

• Motivation to Combine: A PHOSITA, reviewing US9953149B2 (or similar facial recognition systems) and aware of the spoofing vulnerabilities, would be motivated to integrate the commonly available mobile device sensors.

  • Problem: The problem remains the same as in Combination 1: enhancing the security of facial recognition against spoofing.
  • Solution: US9953149B2 provides a facial recognition system. A PHOSITA, seeking to improve its security, would consider adding dynamic elements. The mobile device's built-in sensors offer a convenient and cost-effective way to introduce a "path parameter" or "movement" component. The patent itself states: "the disclosed embodiments have been developed in light of the above and aspects of the invention may include a method for enrolling and authenticating a user in an authentication system via a user's computing device" and highlights the need for "reliable, cost-effective, and convenient method to authenticate users" (US11874910, "the disclosed embodiments" definition, "two-dimensional facial recognition" definition). Using existing hardware (sensors) to address a known security flaw in an existing software application (facial recognition) would be an obvious design choice for a PHOSITA.
  • Rationale: The motivation would be to improve the robustness and anti-spoofing capabilities of the facial recognition system described in US9953149B2 by adding data from readily available mobile device movement sensors. This would address a known industry problem with a well-known solution in a related field.

Claim Specific Obviousness Considerations:

Many claims in US11874910 relate to specific aspects of the path parameters and their use in authentication. For example:

• Claim 1: "A facial recognition authentication method comprising: obtaining, by a mobile device, a plurality of authentication images of a user's face while the mobile device is moved by the user along an authentication movement path relative to the user's face; obtaining, by the mobile device, authentication path parameters of the authentication movement path; and authenticating the user based on the authentication images and the authentication path parameters." (US118774910, Claim 1)

This claim, at its core, combines facial images with movement data for authentication. As argued above, the combination of known facial recognition with known mobile device sensors to generate movement data to address spoofing would be obvious. The specific "authentication movement path" and "authentication path parameters" are a direct result of utilizing these sensors during the imaging process, which a PHOSITA would understand how to implement given the problem of spoofing.

Conclusion on Obviousness:

Based on the explicit statements within US patent 11874910 regarding the known nature of facial recognition and the common presence and functionality of mobile device sensors, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine these elements to address the known security vulnerabilities of 2D facial recognition systems. The idea of using motion data from mobile device sensors to verify the "liveness" and three-dimensionality of a user during a facial recognition authentication attempt would have been a logical and obvious step to enhance security.

Therefore, the combination of existing facial recognition technology (as acknowledged in the patent itself or found in prior art like US9953149B2) with the widely available and understood functionality of mobile device accelerometers, gyroscopes, and magnetometers to generate "path parameters" for liveness detection would likely render many of the claims of US11874910 obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The specific details of the movement paths, feedback mechanisms (e.g., accuracy meters, movement meters), or graphical prompts (e.g., ovals) would be considered routine implementations or design choices for a PHOSITA aiming to optimize such a combined system.