DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is sent in response to Applicant's Response filed 11/12/2025 for 17795286. Claims 1-17 are pending.
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 .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Response to Arguments
In view of Applicant's arguments, the objection of the drawings has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments with respect to the 103 rejection of claim 1 have been considered but are not persuasive in view of the newly cited Stewart reference used in the current rejection of record.
Applicant's arguments essentially consist of reciting the claim language and asserting each reference does not disclose the recited claim language [pgs. 14:2-3]. These arguments amount to no more than reciting the claimed language and alleging the cited prior art references are deficient, which are not separate arguments for patentability of the claims. "A statement which merely points out what a claim recites will not be considered an argument for separate patentability of the claim" [see 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv)]. As noted below, the Office Action presents evidence that stands in direct contrast to Applicant's arguments that Kim, Kaede, and Stewart, alone or in combination, do not teach or suggest the limitations of claim 1. Claim 1 remains rejected.
Claims 9, 10, and 11 recite similar limitations to those recited in claim 1 and remain rejected upon a similar basis as claim 1 as stated above.
Dependent claims 2-8 and 12-17 are rejected at least based on their dependence from independent claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 5 recites the " judging whether the hand of the user being included in the user image and holding the personal identification document is the right hand or the left hand, based on whether a right side or a left side of the personal identification document is held" while parent claim 1 recites " judging whether a right side or a left side of the personal identification document is held by the user; judging whether the hand of the user included in the user image is the right hand or the left hand based on whether a right side or a left side of the personal identification document is held by the user". Both claims appear to teach the similar limitation of method steps judging whether a right side or a left side of the personal identification document is held and judging whether the hand of the user being included in the user image and holding the personal identification document is the right hand or the left hand.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 1-7, 9-13, and 15-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 20180302568 A1) in view of Kaede (US 20200380280 A1) and Stewart et al. (US 20150181111 A1).
As to claim 1, Kim discloses an identification processing method comprising:
controlling a portable terminal to acquire a user image including a user and [] a hand of the user … [Figs. 5, 8, para 0220, 0286-0289, terminal acquires image including preview image of user and user hand image];
controlling the portable terminal to display, on a screen of a touch panel display, the user image including the user [Figs. 1A, 5, 8, para 0066, 0220, 0287-0289, terminal displays acquired image of user, where terminal display includes touch screen];
controlling the portable terminal to superimpose, on the user image displayed on the screen, a frame guiding positioning of [] by the user [Fig. 8, para 0293, terminal displays guide (read: frame) indicating focus in acquired image];
identifying, within the user image, a partial image that is included in the frame superimposed on the user image and that includes at least a portion of … the user … [Figs. 5, 8, para 0223, 0288-0290, determine preview image (read: partial image) including guide and image of user hand];
judging whether the hand of the user [] is a right hand or a left hand of the user by analyzing the partial image [] [Figs. 5, 8, para 0221, 0231-0233, 0288-0289, determine photograph state information including determining hand image as user right hand];
setting a position of an operation button to be displayed on the screen according to whether the hand of the user [] is the right hand or the left hand [Figs. 5, 8, para 0234, 0239, 0288-0289, determine button at left side of screen corresponding to determining image of user right hand];
controlling the portable terminal to display the operation button on the screen at the set position [Figs. 5, 8, para 0235, 0239, 0291-0292, terminal displays button at screen position]; and
executing a personal identification process for the user based on … an image of the user, the image regarding … the image of the user being derived in response to operating the operation button [para 0292-0293, take selfie with focused subject (read: personal identification) included in preview image after touching button].
However, Kim does not specifically disclose a user image including a user and a personal identification document held by the user with a hand of the user in response to receiving a request for opening a financial institution account; a frame guiding positioning of the personal identification document by the user; a partial image that includes at least a portion of the hand of the user holding the personal identification document; wherein "the hand of the user []" is "the hand of the user holding the personal identification document"; analyzing the partial image included in the frame guiding positioning of the personal identification document; and a personal identification process for the user based on an image regarding the personal identification document and an image of the user, the image regarding the personal identification document and the image of the user being derived.
Kaede discloses:
a user image including a user and a personal identification document held by the user with a hand of the user in response to receiving a request for opening a financial institution account [Fig. 4, para 0039-0041, 0055, 0121-0122, initiate process to capture video of person holding object including identification card of driver's license when a bank account is opened];
a frame guiding positioning of the personal identification document by the user [Fig. 7, para 0039-0041, display frame guiding position of object including identification card];
a partial image that includes at least a portion of the hand of the user holding the personal identification document [Fig. 7, para 0039-0043, acquire image data including frame fitting user holding object, note user body part in contact with object as shown in Figure 7];
the hand of the user holding the personal identification document [Fig. 7, para 0039-0043, image data includes frame fitting user holding object, note user body part in contact with object as shown in Figure 7];
analyzing the partial image included in the frame guiding positioning of the personal identification document [para 0042-0044, determine object recognition based on whether object fits in frame guiding object position]; and
a personal identification process for the user based on an image regarding the personal identification document and an image of the user, the image regarding the personal identification document and the image of the user being derived [para 0039, 004-0044, 0121-0126, perform personal identification based on comparing object and person detected in acquired video frames].
Kim and Kaede are analogous art to the claimed invention being from a similar field of endeavor of image capture systems. Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the user image, frame, partial image, and personal identification process as disclosed by Kim with the user image including a user and a held personal identification document, the frame guiding positioning of the personal identification document, partial image including a user hand holding the personal identification document, analyzing the partial image included in the frame, and personal identification process based on an image regarding the personal identification document and an image of the user as disclosed by Kaede with a reasonable expectation of success.
One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to modify Kim as described above to shoot better photos for object recognition purposes [Kaede, para 0040, 0043].
Kim teaches judging whether the hand of the user included in the user image is the right hand or the left hand … [Figs. 5, 8, para 0221, 0231-0233, 0288-0289, determine photograph state information including determining hand image as user right hand] but not explicitly judging whether a right side or a left side of the personal identification document is held by the user; and judging whether the hand of the user included in the user image is the right hand or the left hand based on whether a right side or a left side of the personal identification document is held by the user
However, Kaede teaches judging the personal identification document is held by the user [Fig. 7, para 0055, 0060-0061, 0071, 0122, user holds object including identification card] and Stewart teaches judging whether a right side or a left side of the personal identification document is held by the user; and judging whether the hand of the user included in the user image is the right hand or the left hand based on whether a right side or a left side of the personal identification document is held by the user [Fig. 5, para 0006, 0052-0053, 0055-0056, 0089, detect recognized holding gesture performed by user hand holding object, where recognized holding gesture includes user holding object at left edge with one hand, note Figure 5 shows user right hand holding left side of object as viewed by image capture device].
Because Kim, Kaede, and Stewart are analogous art to the claimed invention being from a similar field of endeavor of image capture devices, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention combine the teachings of Kaede judging whether the hand of the user included in the user image is the right hand or the left hand based on judging whether a right side or a left side of the personal identification document is held by the user with a reasonable expectation of success of judging whether a right side or a left side of the personal identification document is held by the user; and judging whether the hand of the user included in the user image is the right hand or the left hand based on whether a right side or a left side of the personal identification document is held by the user [see MPEP 2143].
One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to apply this teaching to Kim and Kaede to provides user customizability when invoking image capture [Stewart, para 0056].
As to claim 2, Kim discloses the identification processing method according to claim 1, comprising:
controlling a portable camera to acquire the user image generated by a camera function of the portable terminal [Figs. 1A-1C, 8, para 0131-0132, 0230-0231, 0286-0287, terminal acquires image through terminal camera], and
controlling the portable camera to generate the screen in which the operation button is superimposed on the user image [Figs. 5, 8, para 0220, 0292-0293, display unit displays preview image including image of user, where button is displayed as floating (read: superimposed) on display unit screen].
As to claim 3, Kim discloses the identification processing method according to claim 1, comprising controlling a portable camera to move, when the right hand is included in the user image, the position of the operation button leftward [Fig. 8, para 0288-0289, 0291-0292, display button at left side of terminal display unit based on recognizing user right hand image included in acquired image], compared to a case in which [a] hand is included in the user image [para 0230-0231, determine image of user hand included in preview image] but not explicitly a case in which the left hand is included in the user image.
However, Kim teaches recognizing a leftward direction when the right hand is included in the user image [Fig. 8, para 0230-0231, 0288-0289, 0291-0292, display button at left side of terminal display unit based on recognizing user right hand image included in acquired image] and that a direction may be any of a left hand or a right hand [para 0228].
Kim is analogous art to the claimed invention being from a similar field of endeavor of image capture devices. Thus, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the teachings of Kim recognizing another direction based on a hand acquired in an image to either direction of a left hand or right hand with a reasonable expectation of success to result in a case in which the left hand is included in the user image [see MPEP 2143].
One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to apply this teaching to Kim to increase input functionality [Kim, para 0006].
As to claim 4, Kim discloses the identification processing method according to claim 1, comprising:
controlling a portable camera to generate the screen in which a frame guiding positioning of a face is also superimposed on the user image [Figs. 8-9, para 0293, 0305, display guide (read: frame) indicating focus (read: guide) subject face on (read: superimposed) preview image], and
controlling the portable camera to acquire the user image including the user [] with the left hand or the right hand [Figs. 5, 8, para 0223, 0286-0290, acquire preview image including image of user hand].
However, Kim does not specifically disclose the user holding the personal identification document with the left hand or the right hand.
Kaede discloses: the user holding the personal identification document with the left hand or the right hand [Fig. 7, para 0055, 0060-0061, 0071, 0122, user holds object including identification card, note one of ordinary skill would recognize that a person facing a camera and holding an object as viewed from a left side would be holding the object with their right hand].
Kim and Kaede are analogous art to the claimed invention being from a similar field of endeavor of image capture systems. Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the user image including the user with a hand as disclosed by Kim with a user image including a user holding a personal identification document with a hand as disclosed by Kaede with a reasonable expectation of success.
One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to modify Kim as described above to shoot better photos for object recognition purposes [Kaede, para 0040, 0043].
As to claim 5, Kim teaches the identification processing method according to claim 4, comprising judging … the hand of the user being included in the user image … [Figs. 5, 8, para 0221, 0231-0233, 0288-0289, determine photograph state information including determining hand image as user right hand] but not explicitly judging whether the hand of the user being included in the user image and holding the personal identification document is the right hand or the left hand, based on whether a right side or a left side of the personal identification document is held..
However, Kaede teaches judging the hand of the user being included in the user image and holding the personal identification document, based on the personal identification document being held [Fig. 7, para 0055, 0060-0061, 0071, 0122, user holds object including identification card] and Stewart teaches judging whether the hand of the user being included in the user image and holding the personal identification document is the right hand or the left hand, based on whether a right side or a left side of the personal identification document is held [Fig. 5, para 0006, 0052-0053, 0055-0056, 0089, detect recognized holding gesture performed by user hand holding object, where recognized holding gesture includes user holding object at left edge with one hand, note Figure 5 shows user right hand holding left side of object as viewed by image capture device].
Because Kim, Kaede, and Stewart are analogous art to the claimed invention being from a similar field of endeavor of image capture devices, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention combine the teachings of Kaede judging a hand of a user included in an image holding a personal identification document to the teachings of Stewart judging a hand of a user included in an image holding a personal identification document as a right or left hand based on a right or left side of the personal identification document being held with a reasonable expectation of success of judging whether the hand of the user being included in the user image and holding the personal identification document is the right hand or the left hand, based on whether a right side or a left side of the personal identification document is held [see MPEP 2143].
One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to apply this teaching to Kim and Kaede to provide user customizability when invoking image capture [Stewart, para 0056].
As to claim 6, Kim teaches the identification processing method according to claim 4, comprising controlling the portable terminal to output … guidance that eliminates misalignments of the positioning of the face of the user … detected from the user image [Figs. 8-9, para 0292-0293, 0303-0305, displays guide indicating face in acquired image, note guide indicates focus on subject user face in relation to preview image when taking photo and falls under broadest reasonable interpretation of eliminating misalignment] but not explicitly voice guidance that eliminates misalignments of the positioning of the face of the user and the positioning of the personal identification document detected from the user image.
However, Kim teaches guidance that eliminates misalignments of the positioning of multiple elements including the face of the user detected from the user image [Figs. 8-9, para 0292-0293, 0303-0305, displays guides indicating faces in acquired image] and Kaede teaches voice guidance that eliminates misalignments of the positioning of the face of the user and the positioning of the personal identification document detected from the user image [para 0035, 0057, 0060, provide prompt including audio guide to adjust position of person or object as guided by frame, note prompt indicates requirement to successfully shoot photo and falls under broadest reasonable interpretation of eliminating misalignment].
Because Kim and Kaede are analogous art to the claimed invention being from a similar field of endeavor of image capture devices, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention combine the teachings of Kim providing guidance for positioning a detected face of a user to the teachings of Kaede providing voice guidance for positioning a detected user and object with a reasonable expectation of success of outputting voice guidance that eliminates misalignments of the positioning of the face of the user and the positioning of the personal identification document detected from the user image [see MPEP 2143].
One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to apply this teaching to Kim to shoot better photos for recognition purposes [Kaede, para 0040, 0043].
As to claim 7, Kim discloses the identification processing method according to claim 1, comprising controlling the portable terminal to display the operation button having a length according to a size of the screen of the touch panel display, the length of the operation button being [relative to] a vertical length of the screen [Fig. 8, para 0261, 0276, 0292, terminal display unit includes left side (read: vertical length) and displays button at a center of left side with a size including length].
However, Kim and Kaede do not specifically disclose the length of the operation button being equal to or greater than a vertical length of the screen.
Stewart discloses a length being equal to or greater than a vertical length of the screen [Fig. 5, para 0089-0091, display information along top of horizontal side of device, note Figure 5 illustrates rectangular display with horizontal side greater than vertical side].
Kim, Kaede, and Stewart are analogous art to the claimed invention being from a similar field of endeavor of image capture systems. Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the length of the operation button as disclosed by Kim and Kaede with a length equal to or greater than a vertical length of a screen as disclosed by Stewart with a reasonable expectation of success.
One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to modify Kim and Kaede as described above to provide a level image perspective to a user [Stewart, para 0069].
As to claim 9, Kim and Kaede, combined at least for the reasons above, Kim discloses a processing method performed by a portable terminal [Fig. 1A, para 0048, terminal], comprising: limitations substantially similar to those recited in claim 1 and is rejected under similar rationale.
As to claim 10, Kim and Kaede, combined at least for the reasons above, Kim discloses a portable terminal [Fig. 1A, para 0048, terminal] comprising: at least one memory configured to store one or more instructions [Fig. 1A, para 0068, memory storing programs]; and at least one processor configured to execute the one or more instructions [Fig. 1A, para 0068-0069, controller executes programs stored in memory] to: perform limitations substantially similar to those recited in claim 1 and is rejected under similar rationale.
As to claim 11, Kim and Kaede, combined at least for the reasons above, Kim discloses a server [para 0056, 0077, server communicating with device] comprising: at least one memory configured to store one or more instructions [Fig. 1A, para 0068, memory storing programs]; and at least one processor configured to execute the one or more instructions [Fig. 1A, para 0068-0069, controller executes programs stored in memory] to: perform limitations substantially similar to those recited in claim 1 and is rejected under similar rationale.
As to claim 12, Kim teaches the identification processing method according to claim 6, comprising: causing a portable display terminal to, when the positioning of the face of the user is not misaligned with the position of the frame guiding the positioning of the face…, … output the [] guidance [Figs. 5, 8-9, para 0241, 0244, 0292-0293, 0303-0305, display guide indicating face in acquired image when sensing focus on subject user face, note guide indicates focus on subject user face in relation to preview image when taking photo and falls under broadest reasonable interpretation of not misaligned] but not explicitly when the positioning of the face of the user is not misaligned with the position of the frame guiding the positioning of the face for at least a predetermined length of time or longer, not output the voice guidance..
However, Kim teaches when the positioning of the face of the user is not misaligned with the position of the frame guiding the positioning of the face, output guidance [Figs. 5, 8-9, para 0241, 0244, 0292-0293, 0303-0305, display guide indicating face in acquired image when sensing focus on subject user face] and Kaede teaches when positioning of an element is not misaligned with a position of a frame guiding the positioning of the element for at least a predetermined length of time or longer, not output the voice guidance [para 0057, 0070, 0073, delay providing audio prompt until object has not been recognized since a predetermined period has elapsed].
Because Kim and Kaede are analogous art to the claimed invention being from a similar field of endeavor of image capture devices, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention apply the teachings of Kim outputting guidance when a user face is not misaligned with a frame to the teachings of Kaede not outputting guidance when an element is not misaligned with a frame for a length of time with a reasonable expectation of success of when the positioning of the face of the user is not misaligned with the position of the frame guiding the positioning of the face for at least a predetermined length of time or longer, not output the voice guidance [see MPEP 2143].
One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to modify Kim as described above to shoot better photos for object recognition purposes [Kaede, para 0040, 0043].
As to claim 13, Kim discloses the identification processing method according to claim 6.
However, Kim does not specifically disclose wherein the positioning of the personal identification document is determined to be misaligned with the position of the frame guiding the positioning of the personal information document when a part of the personal information document is outside the frame.
Kaede discloses wherein the positioning of the personal identification document is determined to be misaligned with the position of the frame guiding the positioning of the personal information document when a part of the personal information document is outside the frame [para 0039, 0060-0061, determine unsuccessful object recognition where object including identification card does not fit in displayed object frame].
Kim and Kaede are analogous art to the claimed invention being from a similar field of endeavor of image capture systems. Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method as disclosed by Kim with the determining misalignment of the positioning of the personal identification document outside a frame as disclosed by Kaede with a reasonable expectation of success.
One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to modify Kim as described above to shoot better photos for object recognition purposes [Kaede, para 0040, 0043].
As to claim 15, Kim discloses the identification processing method according to claim 1, wherein setting the position of the operation button comprises setting a position where distances from both left and right ends of the screen are the same in a case where the user image does not include the hand of the user [Figs. 7A, 8, para 0272, 0276, display button located at center of end of display unit, where center of end includes distances from both left and right ends viewing terminal from portrait perspective, note some preview images do not include user hand as shown in Figures 7A and 8].
As to claim 16, Kim discloses the identification processing method according to claim 1, wherein the operation button is used to capture the image regarding … the image of the user [para 0292-0293, take selfie with focused subject included in preview image after touching button].
However, Kim does not specifically disclose capturing the image regarding the personal identification document and the image of the user.
Kaede discloses capturing the image regarding the personal identification document and the image of the user [Fig. 4, para 0039-0041, 0055, 0121-0122, capture photo of person holding object including identification card of driver's license].
Kim and Kaede are analogous art to the claimed invention being from a similar field of endeavor of image capture systems. Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify capturing the image regarding the image of the user as disclosed by Kim with capturing the image regarding the personal identification document and the image of the user as disclosed by Kaede with a reasonable expectation of success.
One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to modify Kim as described above to shoot better photos for object recognition purposes [Kaede, para 0040, 0043].
As to claim 17, Kim discloses the identification processing method according to claim 1, further comprising:
judging the hand of the user included in the partial image to be one of the right hand or the left hand [Figs. 5, 8, para 0221, 0231-0233, 0288-0289, determine photograph state information including determining hand image as user right hand]; and
in response to the judgment, determining that a hand not included in the user image is a hand holding the portable terminal [Figs. 5, 8, para 0221, 0231-0233, 0288-0289, determine hand holding terminal is hand based on other hand included in acquired image]],
wherein the position of the operation button to be displayed on the screen is based on the determined hand that is holding the portable terminal [Figs. 5, 8, para 0234, 0239, 0288-0289, determine button at left side of screen based on hand holding terminal].
Claim 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim, Kaede, and Stewart as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Shuttleworth et al. (US 20140189608 A1).
As to claim 8, Kim discloses the identification processing method according to claim 1, comprising setting the position of the operation button on the screen according to a size of the touch panel display … [Fig. 8, para 0261, 0276, 0292, terminal display unit displays button at a center of left side with a size, note broadest reasonable interpretation of size includes any magnitude].
However, Kim, Kaede, and Stewart do not specifically disclose setting the position of the operation button on the screen according to a size of the touch panel display so that the larger the size of the touch panel display is, the lower the position of the operation button on the screen is.
Shuttleworth discloses setting the position of the operation button on the screen according to a size of the touch panel display so that the larger the size of the touch panel display is, the lower the position of the operation button on the screen is [Figs. 2, 3, 5, para 0444, 0450-0453, display control on bottom edge of touch screen across phone and tablet user interfaces, where Figure 2 shows tablet with screen larger screen size than phone and one of ordinary skill would recognize that a button located at a bottom of the tablet screen would be lower in relation to the top of the tablet as compared to a button located at a bottom of the phone screen in relation to the top of the phone].
Kim, Kaede, Stewart, and Shuttleworth are analogous art to the claimed invention being from a similar field of endeavor of graphical user interface systems. Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the setting the position of the operation button according to a size of the touch panel display as disclosed by Kim, Kaede, and Stewart so that the larger the size of the touch panel display, the lower the position of the operation button on the screen as disclosed by Shuttleworth with a reasonable expectation of success.
One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to modify Kim, Kaede, and Stewart as described above to provide a scalable user interface [Shuttleworth, para 0450].
Claim 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim, Kaede, and Stewart as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Anderson et al. (US 20190370988 A1).
As to claim 14, Kim discloses the identification processing method according to claim 6.
However, Kim, Kaede, and Stewart do not specifically disclose wherein the positioning of the personal identification document is determined to be misaligned with the position of the frame guiding the positioning of the personal information document when a distance between a center of the frame and a center of the personal information document is equal to or more than a threshold.
Anderson discloses wherein the positioning of the personal identification document is determined to be misaligned with the position of the frame guiding the positioning of the personal information document when a distance between a center of the frame and a center of the personal information document is equal to or more than a threshold [para 0027, 0029-0032, determine unacceptable image (read: misaligned) capturing document with respect to displayed indicia when distance between center of document and center of indicia is outside specified range (read: threshold), note broadest reasonable interpretation of center includes any pivotal point in relation to an intended activity].
Kim, Kaede, Stewart, and Anderson are analogous art to the claimed invention being from a similar field of endeavor of image capture systems. Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method as disclosed by Kim, Kaede, and Stewart with determining positioning of the personal identification document as misaligned with the position of the frame as disclosed by Anderson with a reasonable expectation of success.
One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to modify Kim, Kaede, and Stewart as described above to facilitate capturing sufficient detail for an accepted image [Anderson, para 0022, 0072].
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Huang et al. (US 9412017 B1) generally discloses capturing an image of a user holding a document with a left or right hand.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a)
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LINDA HUYNH whose telephone number is (571)272-5240 and email is linda.huynh@uspto.gov. The examiner can normally be reached M-F between 9am-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, Adam Queler can be reached at (571) 272-4140. 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.
/LINDA HUYNH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2172
Prosecution Insights