Remarks
Claims 12-21 and 26-35 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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 11/7/2025 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/7/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant does not appear to provide any substantive arguments in this response regarding any rejection below. For example, with respect to the prior art rejections, Applicant “respectfully traverses all of these rejections”, notes that the claims have been amended, appears to refer to the MPEP and case law, and alleges “that the cited reference, and any combination thereof, fail to teach or suggest all the features of claim 12 and, therefore, claim 12 is patentable for at lease these reasons.” Applicant's arguments fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) because they amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references.
No argument has been provided. Thus, no response can be provided. Please see the below rejections that fully detail how the claims are rejected.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 12-21 and 26-35 are 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 12 states “extract an appearance feature from each of the plurality of biometric images”. However, claim 12 then attempts to refer to “the appearance feature”. It is unclear which appearance feature is being referenced, since the claim includes multiple appearance features, one extracted from each of the plurality of biometric images. All independent claims have the same issue and are rejected for the same reasons. All dependent claims are rejected at least based on their dependencies. Many claims include the same issue by referring back to “the appearance feature”. Further issues similar to the above are found in additional claims and wording, such as “the category” in claims 12 and 18 and similar claims. In essence, any time a plurality of elements is set forth, for example, by being for “each of the plurality of features” or similar other terminology, the claim must later reference them properly. For example, since there are a plurality of biometric images and there is “an appearance feature for each of the plurality of biometric images”, one cannot later refer simply to “the appearance feature” since it is unclear which appearance feature for which of the plurality of biometric images is being referenced. Further issues arise, such as it being unclear how a single appearance feature, as claimed, could possibly designate “a category to which each of the plurality of biometric images belongs” or how this category can be the same category despite having biometric images that differ in type.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "the biometric information being stored in association with its respective category" in the extract limitation. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claims 26 and 35 have the same issue.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "the biometric information of the registrant whose combination of categories matches the specified combination of categories" in the extract limitation. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claims 26 and 35 have the same issue.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "the specified combination of categories" in the extract limitation. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claims 26 and 35 have the same issue.
Claim 13 recites the limitation "the plurality of biometric information of the registrant". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claims, such as 20, 21, 27, and 34 have the same issue.
Claim 31 recites the limitation "the acquisition unit". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 12-21 and 35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because the claims are directed to apparatuses, but fail to include any physical components.
Claim 12 is directed to an apparatus including memory and a processor, however, Applicant has removed the word “hardware” from each of these, opening them up to being virtual memories and processors, as in the first office action in the instant application. Since the word “hardware” has been removed prior to each of “memory” and “processor”, the most reasonable conclusion that one of ordinary skill in the art can draw is that the amendment changes the memory and processor to include non-hardware memories and processors. As noted in MPEP 2106.03(I), a machine is a "concrete thing, consisting of parts, or of certain devices and combination of devices." Digitech, 758 F.3d at 1348-49, 111 USPQ2d at 1719 (quoting Burr v. Duryee, 68 U.S. 531, 570, 17 L. Ed. 650, 657 (1863)). This category "includes every mechanical device or combination of mechanical powers and devices to perform some function and produce a certain effect or result." Nuijten, 500 F.3d at 1355, 84 USPQ2d at 1501 (quoting Corning v. Burden, 56 U.S. 252, 267, 14 L. Ed. 683, 690 (1854)). Moreover, a machine must be claimed in physical/tangible form. Since the instant claims do not provide any physical components, the claims cannot be statutory as a machine. Claims 13-21 are rejected at least based on their dependencies.
Claim 35 is directed to “A storage medium…”. However, the instant application does not include any special definition thereof and a storage medium is known in the art to include non-statutory media, such as carrier waves. Thus, claim 35 is not statutory.
Claims 12-21 and 26-35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception without significantly more.
Regarding claim 12, with respect to step 1, this part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim falls within any statutory category. MPEP 2106.03. The claim recites an information processing apparatus comprising: memory storing instructions; and a processor configured to execute the instructions to: acquire, from a subject to be matched, a plurality of biometric images whose type differ from each other; extract an appearance feature from each of the plurality of biometric images; specify, based on the appearance feature, a category to which each of the plurality of biometric images belongs, among a plurality of categories set for each of types of the plurality of biometric images; extract, from a database that stores biometric information of a registrant, the biometric information being stored in association with its respective category, the biometric information of a registrant whose combination of categories matches the specified combination of categories; and perform a matching process between the subject and the registrant for each of the types using the extracted biometric information and the plurality of biometric images; wherein the appearance feature is related to one of an iris, fingerprints, or a face. Therefore, if the above-noted 101 rejection were to be fixed, this claim would appear to be a system, which is a statutory category of invention. Please see MPEP 2106.3.I:
A process defines "actions", i.e., an invention that is claimed as an act or step, or a series of acts or steps. As explained by the Supreme Court, a "process" is "a mode of treatment of certain materials to produce a given result. It is an act, or a series of acts, performed upon the subject-matter to be transformed and reduced to a different state or thing." Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 70, 175 USPQ 673, 676 (1972) (italics added) (quoting Cochrane v. Deener, 94 U.S. 780, 788, 24 L. Ed. 139, 141 (1876)). See also Nuijten, 500 F.3d at 1355, 84 USPQ2d at 1501 ("The Supreme Court and this court have consistently interpreted the statutory term ‘process’ to require action"); NTP, Inc. v. Research in Motion, Ltd., 418 F.3d 1282, 1316, 75 USPQ2d 1763, 1791 (Fed. Cir. 2005) ("[A] process is a series of acts.") (quoting Minton v. Natl. Ass’n. of Securities Dealers, 336 F.3d 1373, 1378, 67 USPQ2d 1614, 1681 (Fed. Cir. 2003)). As defined in 35 U.S.C. 100(b), the term "process" is synonymous with "method."
The other three categories (machines, manufactures and compositions of matter) define the types of physical or tangible "things" or "products" that Congress deemed appropriate to patent. Digitech Image Techs. v. Electronics for Imaging, 758 F.3d 1344, 1348, 111 USPQ2d 1717, 1719 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ("For all categories except process claims, the eligible subject matter must exist in some physical or tangible form."). Thus, when determining whether a claimed invention falls within one of these three categories, examiners should verify that the invention is to at least one of the following categories and is claimed in a physical or tangible form.
• A machine is a "concrete thing, consisting of parts, or of certain devices and combination of devices." Digitech, 758 F.3d at 1348-49, 111 USPQ2d at 1719 (quoting Burr v. Duryee, 68 U.S. 531, 570, 17 L. Ed. 650, 657 (1863)). This category "includes every mechanical device or combination of mechanical powers and devices to perform some function and produce a certain effect or result." Nuijten, 500 F.3d at 1355, 84 USPQ2d at 1501 (quoting Corning v. Burden, 56 U.S. 252, 267, 14 L. Ed. 683, 690 (1854)).
• A manufacture is "a tangible article that is given a new form, quality, property, or combination through man-made or artificial means." Digitech, 758 F.3d at 1349, 111 USPQ2d at 1719-20 (citing Diamond v. Chakrabarty, 447 U.S. 303, 308, 206 USPQ 193, 197 (1980)). As the courts have explained, manufactures are articles that result from the process of manufacturing, i.e., they were produced "from raw or prepared materials by giving to these materials new forms, qualities, properties, or combinations, whether by hand-labor or by machinery." Samsung Electronics Co. v. Apple Inc., 137 S. Ct. 429, 120 USPQ2d 1749, 1752-3 (2016) (quoting Diamond v. Chakrabarty, 447 U. S. 303, 308, 206 USPQ 193, 196-97 (1980)); Nuijten, 500 F.3d at 1356-57, 84 USPQ2d at 1502. Manufactures also include "the parts of a machine considered separately from the machine itself." Samsung Electronics, 137 S. Ct. at 435, 120 USPQ2d at 1753 (quoting 1 W. Robinson, The Law of Patents for Useful Inventions §183, p. 270 (1890)).
• A composition of matter is a "combination of two or more substances and includes all composite articles." Digitech, 758 F.3d at 1348-49, 111 USPQ2d at 1719 (citation omitted). This category includes all compositions of two or more substances and all composite articles, "'whether they be the results of chemical union or of mechanical mixture, or whether they be gases, fluids, powders or solids.'" Chakrabarty, 447 U.S. at 308, 206 USPQ at 197 (quoting Shell Dev. Co. v. Watson, 149 F. Supp. 279, 280 (D.D.C. 1957); id. at 310 holding genetically modified microorganism to be a manufacture or composition of matter).
With respect to step 2A, prong one, this part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim recites a judicial exception. As explained in MPEP 2106.04(II) and the October 2019 Update, a claim ‘recites’ a judicial exception when the judicial exception is ‘set forth’ or ‘described’ in the claim. There are no nature-based product limitations in the claim, and thus the markedly different characteristics analysis is not performed. However, the claim still must be reviewed to determine if it recites any other type of judicial exception.
Claim 12, recites the following limitations that are directed to abstract ideas:
memory storing instructions; and
a processor configured to execute the instructions to:
acquire, from a subject to be matched, a plurality of biometric images whose type differ from each other (mental process and/or certain methods of organizing human activity; such as looking at a subject, such as a person at one’s front door);
extract an appearance feature from each of the plurality of biometric images (mental process and/or certain methods of organizing human activity; such as looking at their hair color, skin color, hair length, height, etc.);
specify, based on the appearance feature, a category to which each of the plurality of biometric images belongs, among a plurality of categories set for each of types of the plurality of biometric images (mental process and/or certain methods of organizing human activity; such as noted above); and
extract, from a database that stores biometric information of a registrant, the biometric information being stored in association with its respective category, the biometric information of a registrant whose combination of categories matches the specified combination of categories (mental process and/or certain methods of organizing human activity; such as remembering people with similar attributes); and
perform a matching process between the subject and the registrant for each of the types using the extracted biometric information and the plurality of biometric images (mental process and/or certain methods of organizing human activity; such as remembering people with similar attributes);
wherein the appearance feature is related to one of an iris, fingerprints, or a face (mental process and/or certain methods of organizing human activity; such as remembering and looking at irises, fingerprints, and/or faces);
As noted, these can be performed by a human either completely mentally or by using certain methods of organizing human activity, such as a human writing and reading via documentation or filing systems.
As explained in the MPEP and the October 2019 Update, situations like this where a series of steps recite judicial exceptions, examiners should combine all recited judicial exceptions and treat the claim as containing a single abstract idea for purposes of further eligibility. See MPEP 2106.04 and 2106.05(ii). Thus, for purposes of further discussion, this rejection may consider all limitations as a single abstract idea.
With respect to step 2A, prong two, this part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception. This evaluation is performed by (a) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception, and (b) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application. 2019 PEG Section III(A)(2), 84 Fed. Reg. at 54-55. The independent claims also recite the following additional elements: memory storing instructions and a processor configured to execute the instructions.
However, this/these additional element(s) is/are recited so generically (no details are provided other than memory storing instructions and a processor configured to execute the instructions, each of which may not even be physical/hardware as noted above) that it represents no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer system. This limitation can also be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exception to the technological environment of a computer. It should be noted that because the courts have made clear that mere physicality or tangibility of an additional element or elements is not a relevant consideration in the eligibility analysis, the nature of these components being physical or tangible does not affect this analysis. See MPEP 2106.05(I) for more information on this point, including explanations from judicial decisions including Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. V. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 224-26 (2014).
Even when viewed in combination, any additional elements in this claim do no more than automate the abstract ideas that the human can perform, using computer components as a tool. There is no improvement to any computers or other technology achieved by the claim by automating the abstract ideas, and thus this claim cannot improve computer functionality or other technology. See, e.g., Trading Technologies Int’l v. IBG, Inc., 921 F.3d 1084, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (using a computer to provide a trader with more information to facilitate market trades improved the business process of market trading, but not the computer) and the cases discussed in MPEP 2106.05(a)(I), particularly FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys., 839 F.3d 1089, 1095 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (accelerating a process of analyzing audit log data is not an improvement when the increased speed comes solely from the capabilities of a general-purpose computer) and Credit Acceptance Corp. v. Westlake Services, 859 F.3d 1044, 1055 (Fed. Cir. 2017)(using a generic computer to automate a process of applying to finance a purchase is not an improvement to the computer’s functionality). Accordingly, the claim as a whole does not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application and the claim is directed to the judicial exception.
With respect to step 2B, this part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole amounts to significantly more than the recited exception, i.e., whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, adds an inventive concept to the claim. MPEP 2106.05. As explained with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional element(s) described above is/are at best the equivalent of merely adding the words “apply it” to the judicial exception. Mere instructions to apply an exception cannot provide an inventive concept. Any other additional elements identified above are extra-solution activity, which for purposes of Step 2A Prong Two was considered insignificant. Under the 2019 PEG, however, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B. 2019 PEG Section III(B), 84 Fed. Reg. at 56. At Step 2B, the evaluation of the insignificant extra-solution activity consideration takes into account whether or not the extra-solution activity is well-known. See MPEP 2106.05(g). Here, any insignificant extra solution activity is within the examples provided in USPTO guidance, such as MPEP 2106.05(g), for example. Thus, any subject matter that may be considered extra-solution activity therefore remain insignificant extra-solution activity even upon reconsideration, and do not amount to significantly more. Even when considered in combination, these additional elements represent mere instructions to apply an exception and insignificant extra-solution activity, which cannot provide an inventive concept.
With respect to claim 13, the same analysis as above applies.
With respect to claim 14, the same analysis as above applies.
With respect to claim 15, the same analysis as above applies.
With respect to claim 16, the same analysis as above applies.
With respect to claim 17, the same analysis as above applies.
With respect to claim 18, the same analysis as above applies.
With respect to claim 19, a human may perform this by simply determining age and gender by looking at someone’s face.
With respect to claim 20, the same analysis as above applies.
With respect to claim 21, the same analysis as above applies.
The analysis above applies for claims 26-35 as well for the methods of claims 26-34 and the article of manufacture (if the above 101 rejection were to be corrected) of claim 35.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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 12-14, 17, 21, 26-28, 31, and 35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and/or 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Asai (JP 2006167070 A). An English translation is provided with this document and is referenced in the below rejections.
Regarding Claim 12,
Asai discloses an information processing apparatus comprising:
Memory storing instructions (Exemplary Citations: for example, Figure 1 and associated written description; memory, storage, etc., as examples); and
A processor configured to execute the instructions to (Exemplary Citations: for example, Figure 1 and associated written description; CPU, for example):
Acquire, from a subject to be matched, a plurality of biometric images whose type differ from each other (Exemplary Citations: for example, Abstract, Page 2, TECH-SOLUTION section; Page 5, FIG. 2 paragraph, Page 5, Of the transaction paragraph; Page 6, iris reading, fingerprint reading, finger vein reading, FIG. 3 paragraphs; Page 12, B9; and more);
Extract an appearance feature from each of the plurality of biometric images (Exemplary Citations: for example, Abstract, Page 2, TECH-SOLUTION section; Page 5, FIG. 2 paragraph, Page 5, Of the transaction paragraph; Page 6, iris data, fingerprint data, finger data, FIG. 3 paragraphs; Page 11, B1; and more);
Specify, based on the appearance feature, a category to which each of the plurality of biometric images belongs, among a plurality of categories set for each of types of the plurality of biometric images (Exemplary Citations: for example, Abstract, Page 2, TECH-SOLUTION section; Page 5, FIG. 2 paragraph, Page 5, Of the transaction paragraph; Page 6, iris data, fingerprint data, finger data, FIG. 3 paragraphs; Page 11, B1; and more);
Extract, from a database that stores biometric information of a registrant, the biometric information being stored in association with its respective category, the biometric information of a registrant whose combination of categories matches the specified combination of categories (Exemplary Citations: for example, Abstract, Page 2, TECH-SOLUTION section; Page 5, FIG. 2 paragraph, Page 5, Of the transaction paragraph; Page 6, iris reading device through FIG. 3 paragraphs; Page 6, penultimate paragraph and paragraph spanning pages 6-7; Page 7, last paragraph; Page 8, third paragraph; Page 10, Further paragraph through Page 11, first paragraph; Page 11, B1; and more; search authentication database for combination of biometrics based on input biometrics, for example); and
Perform a matching process between the subject and the registrant for each of the types using the extracted biometric information and the plurality of biometric images (Exemplary Citations: for example, Abstract, Page 2, TECH-SOLUTION section; Page 5, FIG. 2 paragraph, Page 5, Of the transaction paragraph; Page 6, iris reading device through FIG. 3 paragraphs; Page 6, penultimate paragraph and paragraph spanning pages 6-7; Page 7, last paragraph; Page 8, third paragraph; Page 10, Further paragraph through Page 11, first paragraph; Page 11, B1; and more; authentication of the biometric information, for example);
Wherein the appearance feature is related to one of an iris, fingerprints, or a face (Exemplary Citations: for example, Abstract, Page 2, TECH-SOLUTION section; Page 5, FIG. 2 paragraph, Page 5, Of the transaction paragraph; Page 6, iris data, fingerprint data, finger vein data, FIG. 3 paragraphs; Page 11, B1; and more; data related to iris, fingerprint, finger, vein, palm, right, left, thumb, finger, middle finger, etc., as examples).
Regarding Claim 26,
Claim 26 is a method claim that corresponds to apparatus claim 12 and is rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding Claim 35,
Claim 35 is a medium claim that corresponds to apparatus claim 12 and is rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding Claim 13,
Asai discloses in a case where the registrant information associates, for each registrant, the plurality of biometric information of the registrant with categories that the plurality of biometric information of the registrant belong to, the processor performs the matching process, among registrant information, for the matching destination whose categories match in all categories specified for each type (Exemplary Citations: for example, Abstract, Page 2, TECH-SOLUTION section; Page 5, FIG. 2 paragraph, Page 5, Of the transaction paragraph; Page 6, iris reading device through FIG. 3 paragraphs; Page 6, penultimate paragraph and paragraph spanning pages 6-7; Page 7, last paragraph; Page 8, third paragraph; Page 10, Further paragraph through Page 11, first paragraph; Page 11, B1; and more; biometric and other information being stored together, for example).
Regarding Claim 27,
Claim 27 is a method claim that corresponds to apparatus claim 13 and is rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding Claim 14,
Asai discloses that the appearance feature is different from a feature amount that is extracted for each type in a matching process of the plurality of biometric images (Exemplary Citations: for example, Abstract, Page 2, TECH-SOLUTION section; Page 5, FIG. 2 paragraph, Page 5, Of the transaction paragraph; Page 6, iris reading device, fingerprint reading device, finger vein reading device, FIG. 3 paragraphs; Page 11, B1; and more).
Regarding Claim 28,
Claim 28 is a method claim that corresponds to apparatus claim 14 and is rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding Claim 17,
Asai discloses that the processor selects all categories with respect to a type that could not be acquired among the plurality of biometric images (Exemplary Citations: for example, Abstract, Page 2, TECH-SOLUTION section; Page 5, FIG. 2 paragraph, Page 5, Of the transaction paragraph; Page 6, iris reading device, fingerprint reading device, finger vein reading device, FIG. 3 paragraphs; Page 11, B1; and more; authenticating all data, for example).
Regarding Claim 31,
Claim 31 is a method claim that corresponds to apparatus claim 17 and is rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding Claim 21,
Asai discloses the processor is further configured to execute the instructions to unitarily store the plurality of biometric information of the registrant and categories to which the plurality of biometric information of the registrant belongs respectively in association with each registrant (Exemplary Citations: for example, Abstract, Page 2, TECH-SOLUTION section; Page 5, FIG. 2 paragraph, Page 5, Of the transaction paragraph; Page 6, iris reading device through FIG. 3 paragraphs; Page 6, penultimate paragraph and paragraph spanning pages 6-7; Page 7, last paragraph; Page 8, third paragraph; Page 10, Further paragraph through Page 11, first paragraph; Page 11, B1; Page 11, B3; and more; authentication database, memory, storage unit, local storage, database on the Internet, etc., as examples).
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 15, 16, 29, and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Asai in view of Shen (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2021/0192191 or, in the alternative, WO/2020/220779 using 2021/0192191 as a translation).
Regarding Claim 15,
Asai does not appear to explicitly disclose in a case where the plurality of biometric images includes a face image, based on a learning model that has learned a relationship between a category specified from the face image and a matching range for a face matching, the processor specifies the matching range.
Shen, however, discloses in a case where the plurality of biometric images includes a face image, based on a learning model that has learned a relationship between a category specified from the face image and a matching range for a face matching, the processor specifies the matching range (Exemplary Citations: for example, Abstract, Paragraphs 29-37, 42, 45-48, 64-68, 84-86, 116, 125-130, and associated figures; face authentication using sub-libraries associated with faces, for example). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of applicant’s invention, which is before any effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the threshold-based subdividing techniques of Shen into the authentication system of Asai in order to improve the speed of biometric authentication, to provide additional information regarding biometrics, thus getting a better match, and/or to increase security in the system.
Regarding Claim 29,
Claim 29 is a method claim that corresponds to apparatus claim 15 and is rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding Claim 16,
Asai discloses in a case where the plurality of biometric images includes an image, based on a comparison table that predefines a relationship between a category specified from the image and a matching range of a matching, the processor specifies the matching range (Exemplary Citations: for example, Abstract, Page 2, TECH-SOLUTION section; Page 5, FIG. 2 paragraph, Page 5, Of the transaction paragraph; Page 6, iris reading device through FIG. 3 paragraphs; Page 6, penultimate paragraph and paragraph spanning pages 6-7; Page 7, last paragraph; Page 8, third paragraph; Page 10, Further paragraph through Page 11, first paragraph; Page 11, B1; and more; storing information about what type the biometric is to allow for matching appropriate biometrics and matching, for example);
But does not appear to explicitly disclose that the image is a face image and the matching is face matching.
Shen, however, discloses in a case where the plurality of biometric images includes a face image, based on a comparison table that predefines a relationship between a category specified from the face image and a matching range of a face matching, the processor specifies the matching range (Exemplary Citations: for example, Abstract, Paragraphs 29-37, 42, 45-48, 64-68, 84-86, 116, 125-130, and associated figures; face authentication using sub-libraries of faces, for example). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of applicant’s invention, which is before any effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the threshold-based subdividing techniques of Shen into the authentication system of Asai in order to improve the speed of biometric authentication, to provide additional information regarding biometrics, thus getting a better match, and/or to increase security in the system.
Regarding Claim 30,
Claim 30 is a method claim that corresponds to apparatus claim 16 and is rejected for the same reasons.
Claims 18, 19, 32, and 33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Asai in view of Choong (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2012/0321144).
Regarding Claim 18,
Asai does not appear to explicitly disclose that the processor specifies a category based on at least one of a shape, a color, and a luminance determined by an analysis process for each of the plurality of biometric images.
Choong, however, discloses that the processor specifies a category based on at least one of a shape, a color, and a luminance determined by an analysis process for each of the plurality of biometric images (Exemplary Citations: for example, Abstract, Paragraphs 22-24, and associated figures). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of applicant’s invention, which is before any effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the facial recognition based grouping techniques of Choong into the authentication system of Asai in order to allow the system to take into account additional biometric features, such as faces, to ensure that a user is of an appropriate age to use the system, and/or to increase security in the system.
Regarding Claim 32,
Claim 32 is a method claim that corresponds to apparatus claim 18 and is rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding Claim 19,
Asai does not appear to explicitly disclose in a case where the plurality of biometric images are face images, the processor specifies the category based on at least one of an age and a gender of the subject to be matched estimated from a feature of a face image.
Choong, however, discloses in a case where the plurality of biometric images are face images, the processor specifies the category based on at least one of an age and a gender of the subject to be matched estimated from a feature of a face image (Exemplary Citations: for example, Abstract, Paragraphs 22-24, 29-31, and associated figures). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of applicant’s invention, which is before any effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the facial recognition based grouping techniques of Choong into the authentication system of Asai in order to allow the system to take into account additional biometric features, such as faces, to ensure that a user is of an appropriate age to use the system, and/or to increase security in the system.
Regarding Claim 33,
Claim 33 is a method claim that corresponds to apparatus claim 19 and is rejected for the same reasons.
Claims 20 and 34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Asai in view of Spuehier (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2013/0339749).
Regarding Claim 20,
Asai discloses that the hardware processor stores the plurality of biometric information of the registrant for each combination of categories to which the plurality of biometric information of the registrant belong respectively (Exemplary Citations: for example, Abstract, Page 2, TECH-SOLUTION section; Page 5, FIG. 2 paragraph, Page 5, Of the transaction paragraph; Page 6, iris reading device through FIG. 3 paragraphs; Page 6, penultimate paragraph and paragraph spanning pages 6-7; Page 7, last paragraph; Page 8, third paragraph; Page 10, Further paragraph through Page 11, first paragraph; Page 11, B1; Page 11, B3; and more);
But does not appear to explicitly disclose that storing occurs in a distributed manner.
Spuehier, however, discloses that the hardware processor stores the plurality of biometric information of the registrant in a distributed manner for each combination of categories to which the plurality of biometric information of the registrant belong respectively (Exemplary Citations: for example, Abstract, Paragraphs 19, 25-27, 34, 38, and associated figures; distributed storage of biometric information, for example). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of applicant’s invention, which is before any effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the distributed biometric techniques of Spuehier into the authentication system of Asai in order to allow for biometric information to be encrypted, thus protecting the data further, to provide for distributed storage of information, thus increasing speed, reliability, and privacy of access, and/or to increase security in the system.
Regarding Claim 34,
Claim 34 is a method claim that corresponds to apparatus claim 20 and is rejected for the same reasons.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jeffrey D Popham whose telephone number is (571)272-7215. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday 9:00-5:30.
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, Jeffrey Nickerson can be reached at (469) 295-9235. 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.
/Jeffrey D. Popham/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2432