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 .
Claim Status
Claims 1-20 in the claim set filed October 8th, 2025, were pending for examination in the Application No. 18/027,912 filed March 22nd, 2023. In the remarks and amendments received on February 17th, 2026, claims 1, 3, 10, 12, and 19 are amended. Accordingly, claims 1-20 are currently pending for examination in the application.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendments filed February 17th, 2026, to the Claims have overcome each and every objection previously set forth in the Final Office Action mailed November 18th, 2025. Accordingly, the objections are withdrawn in response to the remarks and amendments filed. The examiner warmly thanks Applicant for considering the suggested amendments to be made to the disclosure.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed February 17th, 2026, regarding the rejection of the independent claims have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
The examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant’s assertion that Agrawal does not disclose factoring in the “two or more different biometric aspects” in the selection of images to be used in a biometric authentication process and cites paragraph [0058] of Agrawal as reference. As disclosed in the current rejection of claim 1 below, the examiner relies upon paragraph [0030] and not paragraph [0058] of Agrawal to teach that the selection is based on “visibility… of two or more different biometric aspects of the user” (emphasis added). As recited in paragraph [0030] of Agrawal, discarding images that “occlude or obscure a portion of pupil 202 and/or iris 204” is selecting images based on the visibility that the two biometric aspects of an iris (e.g., “iris 204”) and an eye (e.g., “pupil” is a feature of an eye) are not “occlude[d] or obscure[d]”. Paragraph [0058] teaches that these “two or more biometric aspects” of the iris and the eye are then used in the biometric authentication for the user by analyzing the characteristics of the two or more biometric aspects (e.g., at least an “iris color” of the iris and at least an “eye shape” of the eye).
The examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant’s assertion that Agrawal does not disclose considering the “visibility in the one of the two more images” (emphasis added). As detailed in the rejection below, paragraph [0030] of Agrawal teaches that a plurality of “images” are analyzed for any “obstructions [that] may occlude or obscure” the two or more biometric aspects of an iris (e.g., “iris 204”) and an eye (e.g., “a portion of pupil 202”), where only images that are “likely to generate unoccluded images” are selected for further processing (e.g., biometric authentication). Although Agrawal does not explicitly recite performing the analysis in a singular image, the recitation of performing this analysis in each of a plurality of “images” encompasses performing this analysis in at least a single image of the plurality of images. Therefore, paragraph [0030] of Agrawal recites performing this analysis of “visibility” of any “obstructions [that] may occlude or obscure” on the plurality of the “two or more biometric aspects” (e.g., iris and eye) on at least an image of a plurality of two or more images (i.e., “in the one of the two or more images” as recited in claim 1).
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS(s)) submitted on December 31st, 2025; January 22nd, 2026; February 5th, 2026; March 20th, 2026; April 30th, 2026; and May 27th, 2026, is/are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the IDS(s) is/are being considered and attached by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
The factual inquiries 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 1-8, 10-17, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cohen et al. (Cohen 2022; US 2022/0253135 A1) in view of Agrawal et al. (Agrawal; US 2018/0365490 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Cohen 2022 discloses a system, comprising:
two or more cameras configured to capture images of an eye region of a user (para(s). [0725], [0735], and [0778], recite(s)
[0725] “As illustrated in FIG. 9B,… The left eye imaging system can include one or more inward-facing cameras (2014, 2016). …The right eye imaging system can include one or more inward-facing cameras (2018, 2020). …The left eye tracking camera 2018 and right eye tracking camera 2020 may be located to the left and right of each other, respectively, possibly left and right of center of the right eyepiece, respectively. The one or more cameras in the left eye tracking system 2010A and the one or more cameras in the right eye tracking system 2010B may be situated within the wearable device 2000 so as to unobtrusively capture images of the user's eye(s). Other configurations are possible.”
[0735] “The imaging system of the wearable system may be part of an eye tracking assembly (for example, as shown in FIGS. 9A-E). The imaging system may include one or more cameras. …In another example, the imaging system can include multiple cameras that may be located at different locations in relation to the user's eye 1110.”
[0778] “…Additionally or alternatively, the module 614 can receive images of a user's eye(s) with different camera conditions, such as camera distance from the user's eye, vertical or horizontal location with respect to the user's eye, or any combination thereof, which may provide different camera perspectives and/or for different cameras having different locations and/or perspectives. As described above, a wearable device can prompt the user to engage in different eye poses by, for example, causing the display of gaze targets in different regions of the display…”
, where the “inward-facing cameras” are two or more cameras from different points of view capturing images of an eye region of a user (e.g., left eye and right eye));
a controller comprising one or more processors (para(s). [0799], recite(s)
[0799] “Each of the processes, methods, and algorithms described herein and/or depicted in the attached figures may be embodied in, and fully or partially automated by, code modules executed by one or more physical computing systems, hardware computer processors, application-specific circuitry, and/or electronic hardware configured to execute specific and particular computer instructions…”
) configured to:
analyze two or more images of the eye region captured by the two or more cameras from different points of view to select one of the two or more images to be used in a biometric authentication process, wherein the two or more images include at least one image captured by each camera, wherein the selected one of the two or more images is selected based on(para(s). [0775] and [0668], recite(s)
[0775] “At an image receiving block 2110, the module 614 can receive one or more images of a user's eye. The images can be obtained from an imaging system associated with a wearable device worn by the user. For example, the wearable device can be a head mounted display that includes a left eyepiece 2010A and a right eyepiece 2010B with imaging systems that include inward-facing cameras 2014, 2016, 2018, and 2020 as illustrated in FIGS. 9A-9D. The module 614 can optionally analyze the images for quality. For example, the module 614 can determine if the images pass a quality threshold. The threshold can include metrics for quality of the image relating to blur, obstruction, unwanted glints, or other quality metrics that may affect the accuracy of the center of rotation analysis. If the module 614 determines that the image passes the image quality threshold, the module 614 may use the image in further analysis.”
[0668] “…The inward-facing imaging system 466 can be used to obtain images for use in determining the direction the user is looking (e.g., eye pose) or for biometric identification of the user (e.g., via iris identification)…”
, where “determin[ing] if the images pass a quality threshold” is analyzing at least two or more images captured by the two or more cameras from different points of view (as disclosed in paras. [0735] and [0778] cited previously in the first claim limitation above) and selecting at least one of the two or more images based on biometric aspects of the user comprising features from at least an iris (e.g., “iris identification” includes selecting images via thresholds for “blur, obstruction, unwanted glints, or other quality metrics”); wherein para. [0068] above further recites the selected one of the two or more images is to be used in a biometric authentication process (e.g., “biometric identification… via iris identification”)); and
perform biometric authentication for the user based at least in part on the(para(s). [0668]—see citation above—, where “us[ing] the obtain[ed] images… for biometric identification of the user (e.g., via iris identification)” is performing biometric authentication for the user based at least in part on the biometric aspects of the user (e.g., “iris”) from the selected image (e.g., “the image passes the image quality threshold, the module 614 may use the image in further analysis”, where the “further analysis” is the “biometric identification”)).
Where Cohen 2022 does not specifically disclose
…wherein the selected one of the two or more images is selected based on visibility in the one of the two or more images of two or more different biometric aspects of the user due to different points of view, wherein the two or more different biometric aspects comprise of features from two or more of an iris, an eye, or a periorbital region of the user; and
perform biometric authentication for the user based at least in part on the two or more different biometric aspects of the user from the selected image; Agrawal teaches in the same field of endeavor of biometric authentication for systems comprising two or more cameras from different points of view
…wherein the selected one of the two or more images is selected based on visibility in the one of the two or more images of two or more different biometric aspects of the user due to different points of view, wherein the two or more different biometric aspects comprise of features from two or more of an iris, an eye, or a periorbital region of the user (para(s). [0030], recite(s)
[0030] “External light L may also impinge upon and be reflected by the front corneal surface of eye 200 . Such reflections may appear as intense areas or glints when the eye is imaged. During imaging, the positioning and intensity of such glints may vary depending on the relative positions of the optical source(s), eye, and optical sensor(s). In some scenarios, one or more eyelashes 208 , eyelids 210 , and/or other obstructions may occlude or obscure a portion of pupil 202 and/or iris 204 , either directly or via shadows. Such images may be discarded, occluded regions and/or regions likely to be occluded may be masked by the eye-imaging system, and/or the eye-imaging system may be trained to only take images of the eye from perspectives and/or illumination angles that are likely to generate unoccluded images.”
, where “only tak[ing] images of the eye from perspectives and/or illumination angles that are likely to generate unconcluded images” is selecting at least one of two or more images based on visibility in the one of the two or more images (e.g., an image from a “perspective[s]” without “intense areas or glints” and/or obstructions) of features of two or more different biometric aspects of a user (e.g., “intense areas or glints” refer to the visibility of at least the biometric aspect of an eye; and/or the “obstructions” refer to the visibility of at least the biometric aspects of an “iris” and an eye—i.e., a “pupil” is a feature from an eye) due to different points of view (e.g., variance of “intense areas or glints” due to “relative positions of the optical source(s), eye, and optical sensor(s)”—i.e., “images of the eye from [different] perspectives”)); and
perform biometric authentication for the user based at least in part on the two or more different biometric aspects of the user from the selected image (para. [0058], recite(s)
[0058] “At 630, method 600 includes recognizing a user ID based on the two or more sets of corresponding pixels. For example, characteristics of one or more aligned, normalized images may be quantized and compared with images corresponding to user IDs for all enrolled users. Eye characteristics, such as iris color, eye shape, etc. may be utilized to restrict the number of comparisons. If no user ID is recognized based on the two or more sets of corresponding pixels, the authentication process may be aborted, and/or the user may be asked to have their eye re-imaged. If a user ID is recognized, the authentication process may proceed.”
, where authenticating a user based on eye characteristics such as “iris color” and “eye shape” is performing biometric authentication for the user based at least in part on the two or more different biometric aspects of the user of at least features of the “iris” (e.g., color) and “eye” (e.g., “shape”)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the presently filed invention to modify the system of Cohen 2022 to incorporate selecting at least one of the two or more images based on visibility of two or more different biometric aspects of the user—wherein the two or more different biometric aspects comprise of features from two or more of an iris, an eye, or a periorbital region of the user—and performing biometric authentication for the user based at least in part on the two or more different biometric aspects of the user from the selected image to improve biometric authentication systems by discarding images of poor quality, such as images with obstructions and/or intense reflections as taught by Agrawal above.
Regarding claim 2, Cohen 2022 in view of Agrawal discloses the system as recited in claim 1, wherein Cohen 2022 further discloses the eye region includes one or more of an iris, an eye, a periorbital region, and a portion of the user's face (para(s). [0725]—see citation in claim 1 limitation “two or more cameras…” above—, and para(s). [0673] further recite(s):
[0673] “FIG. 5 illustrates an image of an eye 500 with eyelids 504 , sclera 508 (the “white” of the eye), iris 512 , and pupil 516 . Curve 516 a shows the pupillary boundary between the pupil 516 and the iris 512 , and curve 512 a shows the limbic boundary between the iris 512 and the sclera 508 . The eyelids 504 include an upper eyelid 504 a and a lower eyelid 504 b. The eye 500 is illustrated in a natural resting pose (e.g., in which the user's face and gaze are both oriented as they would be toward a distant object directly ahead of the user). The natural resting pose of the eye 500 can be indicated by a natural resting direction 520 , which is a direction orthogonal to the surface of the eye 500 when in the natural resting pose (e.g., directly out of the plane for the eye 500 shown in FIG. 5) and in this example, centered within the pupil 516 .”
, where the eye region includes at least an iris (“iris 512”), an eye (“eye 500”), and a periorbital region (e.g., “eyelids 504”)).
Regarding claim 3, Cohen 2022 in view of Agrawal discloses the system as recited in claim 1, wherein Cohen 2022 further discloses, to analyze the two or more images of the eye region captured by the two or more cameras to select one of the images to be used in a biometric authentication process, the controller is configured to apply objective criteria to the two or more images to determine whether the two or more images meet thresholds of quality for the biometric authentication (para(s). [0775]—see citation in claim 1 limitation “analyze two or more images…” above—, where the “metrics for quality” (e.g., “blur” or “unwanted glints”) are objective criteria and the “quality threshold… includ[ing] metrics for quality of the image” are thresholds of quality).
Regarding claim 4, Cohen 2022 in view of Agrawal discloses the system as recited in claim 3, wherein Cohen 2022 further discloses the objective criteria include one or more of exposure, contrast, shadows, edges, undesirable streaks, occluding objects, sharpness, uniformity of illumination, and absence of undesired reflections (para(s). [0775]—see citation in claim 3 above—, where the object criteria includes at least an absence of undesired reflections (e.g., “unwanted glints”)).
Regarding claim 5, Cohen 2022 in view of Agrawal discloses the system as recited in claim 1, wherein Agrawal further teaches in the same field of endeavor of biometric authentication for HMDs the controller is further configured to perform anti-spoofing based at least in part on the selected image (para(s). [0014] and [0017-0018], recite(s)
[0014] “However, 2D iris imaging is susceptible to spoofing. A high-resolution image of a user's iris may be printed on high-quality paper and presented for authentication. Further, a printed iris image may be placed over an attacker's eye (akin to a contact lens), thus surrounding the fake iris with real facial components and providing enough information to defeat many anti-spoofing measures.”
[0017] “In this detailed description, systems and methods are presented wherein iris images are generated from multiple illumination angles over multiple time points in order to extract rich, unique, 3D structural features for a user's iris. These features may be used both to enhance the iris recognition signature (e.g., by increasing the degrees of freedom in a 2D iris recognition pipeline), and to prevent against iris spoofing.”
[0018] “In one example implementation, an eye-imaging and iris-recognition system may be incorporated into a head-mounted display (HMD) device. Iris recognition may be performed each time a user puts the HMD device on. If a user is recognized based on their iris signature, they may be signed on to the device. In some examples, multiple users may share the same HMD device, but data, preferences, personal information, etc. affiliated with one user may be kept separate and private from other users through the use of iris recognition. Further, non-registered users of the HMD device may not be provided access to any personal data, and may denied access privileges to the device as a whole. One or both eyes may be imaged and subject to verification in order to sign a user on to the device.”
, where “prevent[ing] against iris spoofing” is performing anti-spoofing).
Regarding claim 6, Cohen 2022 in view of Agrawal discloses the system as recited in claim 1, wherein Cohen 2022 further discloses the system as recited in claim 1 further comprising an illumination source comprising a plurality of light-emitting elements configured to emit light towards the eye region to be imaged by the cameras (para(s). [0724] and [0736], recite(s)
[0724] “As illustrated in FIG. 9B, the left eyepiece 2010A may include one or more illumination sources 2022. Similarly, the right eyepiece 2010B may include one or more illumination sources 2024. For example, there may be four illumination sources 2022 and four illumination sources 2024. The illumination sources 2022 may be positioned within a left eyepiece 2010A to emit light towards a user's left eye 2012A. The illumination sources 2022 may be positioned so as not to obstruct the user's view through the left eyepiece 2010A. For example, the illumination sources 2022 may be positioned around a rim of a display within the left eyepiece 2010A so as not to obstruct a user's view through the display. Similarly, the illumination sources 2024 may be positioned within a right eyepiece 2010B to emit light towards a user's right eye 2012B. The illumination sources 2024 may be positioned so as not to obstruct the user's view through the right eyepiece 2010B. For example, the illumination sources 20204 may be positioned around a rim of a display within the right eyepiece 2010B so as not to obstruct a user's view through the display. The illumination sources 2022, 2024 may emit light in visible or non-visible light. For example, the illumination sources 2022, 2024 may be infrared (IR) LEDs. The illumination sources may also be located or configured differently.”
[0736] “The illumination source(s) 1102 can include one or more light sources such as light emitting diodes (LEDs). The illumination source(s) may emit light in visible or non-visible light (for example, infrared (IR) light). For example, the illumination source(s) 1102 can be infrared (IR) LEDs. The illumination source(s) 1102 can be part of an eye tracking assembly (for example, as illustrated in FIGS. 9A-E).”
, where the “illumination sources” are a plurality of light-emitting elements (e.g., “emit light in visible or non-visible light”)).
Regarding claim 7, Cohen 2022 in view of Agrawal discloses the system as recited in claim 6, wherein Cohen 2022 further discloses the light-emitting elements include light-emitting diodes (LEDs) (para(s). [0724]—see citation in claim 6 above—, where the “infrared (IR) LEDs” are light-emitting diodes).
Regarding claim 8, Cohen 2022 in view of Agrawal discloses the system as recited in claim 6, wherein Cohen 2022 further discloses the light-emitting elements include infrared (IR) light sources (para(s). [0724]—see citation in claim 6 above—, where “infrared (IR) LEDs” are infrared light sources), and wherein Cohen 2022 further teaches the cameras include at least one infrared camera (para(s). [0638], recite(s)
[0638] “…The depicted view also shows two miniature infrared cameras 324 paired with infrared light sources 326 (such as light emitting diodes “LED”s), which are configured to be able to track the eyes 302, 304 of the user to support rendering and user input. The cameras 324 may be part of the inward-facing imaging system 462 shown in FIG. 4…”
, where the “two or more cameras” includes at least one infrared camera (e.g., one of “miniature infrared cameras”)).
Regarding claim 10, the claim is the method performed by the system of claim 1. Therefore, claim 10 recites similar limitations to claim 1 and is rejected for similar rationale and reasoning (see the analysis for claim 1 above).
Regarding claim 11, the claim recites similar limitations to claim 2 and is rejected for similar rationale and reasoning (see the analysis for claim 2 above).
Regarding claim 12, the claim recites similar limitations to claim 3 and is rejected for similar rationale and reasoning (see the analysis for claim 3 above).
Regarding claim 13, the claim recites similar limitations to claim 4 and is rejected for similar rationale and reasoning (see the analysis for claim 4 above).
Regarding claim 14, the claim recites similar limitations to claim 5 and is rejected for similar rationale and reasoning (see the analysis for claim 5 above).
Regarding claim 15, the claim recites similar limitations to claim 6 and is rejected for similar rationale and reasoning (see the analysis for claim 6 above).
Regarding claim 16, the claim recites similar limitations to claim 7 and is rejected for similar rationale and reasoning (see the analysis for claim 7 above).
Regarding claim 17, the claim recites similar limitations to claim 8 and is rejected for similar rationale and reasoning (see the analysis for claim 8 above).
Regarding claim 19, Cohen 2022 discloses one or more non-transitory computer-readable storage media storing program instructions that, when executed on or across one or more processors, (para(s). [0799]—see citation in claim 1 limitation “a controller comprising…” above—, where para(s). [0801] further recite(s):
[0801] “Code modules or any type of data may be stored on any type of non-transitory computer-readable medium…”
) perform:
causing two or more cameras to capture images of an eye region of a user (para(s). [0725], [0735], and [0778]—see the rejection of similar claim limitation in claim 1 above: “two or more cameras…”);
analyzing two or more images of the eye region captured by the two or more cameras to select one of the two or more images to be used in a biometric authentication process, wherein the two or more images include at least one image captured by each camera, wherein the selected one of the two or more images is selected based on(para(s). [0775] and [0668]—see similar limitation in claim 1 limitation above: “analyze two or more images…” above—, where “determin[ing] if the images pass a quality threshold” is analyzing at least two or more images captured by the two or more cameras to select at least one of the two or more images based on biometric aspects of the user (e.g., “blur, obstruction, unwanted glints, or other quality metrics”); wherein para. [0068] above further recites the selected one of the two or more images is to be used in a biometric authentication process (e.g., “biometric identification… via iris identification”)); and
performing biometric authentication for the user based at least in part on the(para(s). [0668]—see the rejection of similar claim limitation in claim 1 above: “perform biometric authentication…”).
Where Cohen 2022 does not specifically disclose
…wherein the selected one of the two or more images is selected based on visibility in the one of the two or more images of two or more different biometric aspects of the user, wherein the two or more different biometric aspects comprise of features from two or more of an iris, an eye, or a periorbital region of the user; and
perform biometric authentication for the user based at least in part on the two or more different biometric aspects of the user from the selected image; Agrawal teaches in the same field of endeavor of biometric authentication for systems comprising two or more cameras from different points of view
…wherein the selected one of the two or more images is selected based on visibility in the one of the two or more images of two or more different biometric aspects of the user, wherein the two or more different biometric aspects comprise of features from two or more of an iris, an eye, or a periorbital region of the user (para(s). [0030]—see the rejection of similar claim limitation in claim 1 above); and
perform biometric authentication for the user based at least in part on the two or more different biometric aspects of the user from the selected image (para. [0058]— see the rejection of similar claim limitation in claim 1 above).
Claim 19 recites similar limitations to claim 1 and is rejected for similar rationale and reasoning (see the analysis for claim 1 above).
Regarding claim 20, the claim recites similar limitations to claim 2 and is rejected for similar rationale and reasoning (see the analysis for claim 2 above).
Claims 9 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cohen 2022 in view of Agrawal as applied to claims 1 and 10 above, and further in view of Olade et al. (Olade; “A Review of Multimodal Facial Biometric Authentication Methods in Mobile Devices and Their Application in Head Mounted Displays,” 2018; cited as a prior art on record in the previously set forth Non-Final Office Action mailed February 21st, 2025).
Regarding claim 9, Cohen 2022 in view of Agrawal discloses the system as recited in claim 1, wherein Cohen 2022 further discloses the system is a component of a head-mounted device (HMD) (para. [0005], recite(s)
[0005] “…The display system can include a frame configured to be supported on a head of the user, a head-mounted display disposed on the frame, one or more eye tracking cameras configured to image the user's eye…”
)
Where Cohen 2022 in view of Agrawal does not specifically disclose
wherein a first camera of the two or more cameras is mounted on an upper half of the HMD and a second camera of the two or more cameras is mounted on a lower half of the HMD;
Olade teaches in the same field of endeavor biometric authentication using two or more cameras configured to capture images of an eye region of a user
wherein a first camera of the two or more cameras is mounted on an upper half of the HMD and a second camera of the two or more cameras is mounted on a lower half of the HMD (Fig. 11 and para. between pgs. 2002-2003, recite(s)
[pgs. 2002-2003] “…As shown in our conceptual HMD design (see Fig. 11), the interior visible light camera facing the users eyes can used for periocular and ocular surface vasculature (OSV) biometrics, while the infrared camera and the infrared LEDs could be used for iris based biometrics. We believe future research will be focused on implementing a seamless unobtrusive facial biometric authentication mechanism for HMDs.”
PNG
media_image1.png
657
942
media_image1.png
Greyscale
, where the “visible light camera” is a first camera mounted on an upper half of an HMD and the “infrared camera” is a second camera mounted on a lower half of the HMD).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the presently filed invention to modify the system of Cohen 2022 in view of Agrawal to incorporate mounting a first camera and second camera of the two or more cameras on an upper half and a lower half of an HMD, respectively, to improve facial biometric authentication for HMDs as taught by Olade above.
Regarding claim 18, the claim recites similar limitations to claim 9 and is rejected for similar rationale and reasoning (see the analysis for claim 9 above).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Prabhakar et al. (WO 2015/108911 A1) discloses in lines 6-33 on pg. 8 to lines 1-15 on pg. 9:
[lines 6-33 on pg. 8 to lines 1-15 on pg. 9] “The invention is premised on the discovery that every image frame (of the image capture region) that is acquired by an imaging apparatus is not necessarily suitable for segmentation, feature extraction or image comparison steps. An image frame of the image capture region may be found to be unsuitable for one or more of the subsequent processing steps on account of unsuitable positioning of the subject's eye / iris relative to the image capture region, including on occurrence of any one or more of the following events - (i) absence of an eye / iris within the image capture region, (ii) eye / iris being only partially positioned within the image capture region, (iii) small size of the eye / iris image acquired by the imaging apparatus, owing to distance at which the subject's eye is positioned (iv) limited usable eye / iris area within the image frame due to occlusions by eye-lids or other objects (v) margin size and (vi) unsuitable gaze angle. Each of these events is described briefly below:”
• Absence of eye / iris within the image capture region - by disregarding images of the image capture region when an eye / iris is not positioned therewithin, irrelevant image frames may be eliminated.
• Eye / iris partially positioned within the image capture region - by disregarding images of the image capture region when an eye / iris is not entirely or sufficiently positioned therewithin, processing of image frames that do not include sufficient meaningful information may be eliminated.
• Iris size - by specifying a threshold eye / iris size for capture within an image frame, processing of image frames that do not offer sufficient textural information for accurate extraction and comparison may be eliminated.
• Occlusion of usable iris area - usable iris area is measured as the percentage of iris that is not occluded by eyelash(es), eyelid(s), specular reflects, ambient specular reflections or otherwise. Occlusion of the iris not only reduces the available iris textural information for comparison, but also decreases accuracy of the iris segmentation process, both of which increase recognition errors. Defining threshold values for usable iris area serves to eliminate image frames that are likely to result in recognition errors.
• Margin size - Margin size refers to the distances of the outer iris boundary from the four image frame boundaries (top, bottom, left and right). Insufficient image margins present difficulties for feature extraction. Image margins may therefore be used a criterion for disregarding images without further processing.
• Unsuitable gaze angle - gaze angle of an iris image is a measure of deviation between the optical axis of the subject's eye and the camera's chief ray going through the center of the pupil in the aforementioned eye. Imaging of the iris when off-axis is found to create a projective deformation of the iris, which affects accuracy of feature extraction and comparison operations. A predetermined threshold for permissible gaze angle serves to eliminate unsuitable image frames.”
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 JULIA Z YAO whose telephone number is (571)272-2870. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday (8:30AM - 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, Emily Terrell can be reached on (571)270-3717. 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.
/J.Z.Y./Examiner, Art Unit 2666
/MING Y HON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2666
Prosecution Insights