DETAILED ACTION
Contents
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 2
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114 2
Response to Arguments 3
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 3
Conclusion 17
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 12/23/25 has been entered.
Claims 1-20 are currently pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 13 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 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 claimedinvention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102 of this title, 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 1-2, 5-11, 13-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ngo et al (IEEE: “Design and Implementation of a multispectral iris capture system”) in view of Joshi et al (US 2020/0250448 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Ngo discloses a system, comprising: a camera configured to capture images of an eye region of a user at multiple wavelengths of light (see fig. 1, 2, abstract; capture and store iris images exposed under different wavelengths of illumination);
an illumination source configured to emit two or more different wavelengths of light towards the eye region of the user to be imaged by the camera (see fig. 1, 2, abstract; multispectral illuminators is designed to sequentially activate for short periods of time to expose the iris to spectral bands in the 405 nm – 1550 nm range). Ngo does not teach expressly a controller comprising one or more processors configured to perform biometric authentication for the user based on two or more images of the eye region of the user captured by the camera at the two or more different wavelengths, wherein the two or more different wavelengths are within an infrared (IR) light range, and wherein the controller is configured to perform different respective portions of the biometric authentication based on images of the two or more images captured at different respective wavelengths of the two or more different wavelengths within the IR light range.
Joshi, in the same field of endeavor, teaches a controller comprising one or more processors (see 0038; processor) configured to perform biometric authentication for the user based on two or more images of the eye region of the user captured by the camera at the two or more different wavelengths (see 0015, 0018, 0006; a biometric authentication system is analyzed to determine if the image corresponds to an actual live person, or to an alternative representation (e.g., a photograph or other image of the live person printed on paper, or displayed on a high definition display device) of the live person…. the images captured using the camera 105 can be processed using an underlying biometric authentication system to identify/verify the user. In some implementations, the biometric authentication system may extract from the images, various features—such as features derived from the face, iris, vasculature underlying the sclera of the eye, or the periocular region….Specifically, this document describes technology in which a subject is imaged under at least two separate wavelength ranges such that the absorption/reflection characteristics of live tissues under the corresponding wavelength ranges differ by at least a threshold amount…. The first wavelength range can include 940 nm. The second wavelength range can include 850 nm.), wherein the two or more different wavelengths are within an infrared (IR) light range (see 0006; The first wavelength range can include 940 nm. The second wavelength range can include 850 nm.), and wherein the controller is configured to perform different respective portions of the biometric authentication (see 0015; 0021; This document presents an image analysis method in which an image captured using an image acquisition device of a biometric authentication system is analyzed to determine if the image corresponds to an actual live person, or to an alternative representation (e.g., a photograph or other image of the live person printed on paper, or displayed on a high definition display device) of the live person. Specifically, this document describes technology in which a subject is imaged under at least two separate wavelength ranges such that the absorption/reflection characteristics of live tissues under the corresponding wavelength ranges differ by at least a threshold amount. Spoof alternative representations such as photographs do not exhibit such differential characteristics, and this property can be used to discriminate between live subjects and spoof alternative representations. If the captured image is not determined to correspond to a live person, any further processing of the captured image by the biometric authentication system can be stopped, and any corresponding access attempt can be prevented immediately. Many biometric authentication systems involve authenticating a user to a secure system based on recognizing the user's face, eye-print, iris etc. Such biometric authentication systems involve capturing one or more images of a user, and executing corresponding recognition processes on the captured image. Malicious attempts to breach the security of such biometric authentication systems can include presenting an alternative representation of a live person to gain access to an account or other privileges associated with the identity of the corresponding live person. Such attacks are generally known as spoof attacks, and the reliability/security of a biometric authentication system can be determined by the ability of the system to differentiate between a live person and corresponding alternative representations (also referred to as spoofs). The technology described herein improves security/reliability of biometric authentication systems that rely on recognizing a user based on face recognition, eye-print recognition, iris recognition etc. Specifically, this document describes preprocessing steps that allow for determining whether the captured image corresponds to an actual live person or a spoof alternative representation such as a printed or displayed image/photograph of the live person. Upon detecting that the captured image is a spoof, any further processing of the image to allow access to the corresponding secure system can be prevented, thereby adding an added layer of security to the system….. Such quick determination at the front end of an authentication process can be used to reduce redundant processing (e.g., on an image that is of a spoof alternative representation), which in turn can improve the efficiency of the underlying biometric authentication process) based on images of the two or more images captured at different respective wavelengths of the two or more different wavelengths within the IR light range (see 0021-0022, 00030; the differences between the corresponding images can be analyzed to determine whether the subject is a live human being or a spoof alternative representation thereof… if the difference between the images is higher than the target value, the subject in the image can be identified as a live person, and an authentication process can be initiated to determine if the live person is authorized to access the underlying secure system… FIGS. 4A and 4B show image pairs captured under two different wavelength ranges for a live human being and a spoof alternative representation, respectively).
It would have been obvious (before the effective filing date of the claimed invention) or (at the time the invention was made) to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Ngo to utilize the cited limitations as suggested by Joshi. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to provide an added later of security to the system (see 00015). Furthermore, the prior art collectively includes each element claimed (though not all in the same reference), and one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements in the manner explained above using known engineering design, interface and/or programming techniques, without changing a “fundamental” operating principle of Ngo, while the teaching of Joshi continues to perform the same function as originally taught prior to being combined, in order to produce the repeatable and predictable result. It is for at least the aforementioned reasons that the examiner has reached a conclusion of obviousness with respect to the claim in question.
Regarding claims 2, 6, 8-11, Ngo teaches sequentially emit the two or more different wavelengths of light, and wherein the camera is configured to sequentially capture the two or more images at the two or more different wavelengths (see abstract);
based on two or more images of the eye region of the user captured by the camera at the two or more different wavelengths, the controller is configured to: process at least one image of the eye region captured by the camera at each of the two or more wavelengths to select one or more biometric aspects of the eye region; and perform the biometric authentication for the user based at least in part on the selected one or more biometric aspects (see section III, c);
eye region includes one or more of an iris, an eye, a periorbital region, and a portion of the user's face (see fig. 1, 6);
a plurality of light-emitting elements configured to emit light towards the eye region to be imaged by the camera, wherein different ones of the light-emitting elements are configured to emit light at different ones of the two or more wavelengths (see section II, A, fig. 1, 3);
light-emitting diodes (LEDs) (see section II, A, fig. 1, 3);
infrared (IR) light sources, and wherein the camera is an infrared camera (see section II, A, fig. 1, 3).
Regarding claim 7, Ngo with Joshi teaches all elements as mentioned above in claim 1. Ngo with Joshi does not teach two or more different wavelengths are within a near-infrared range of the IR light range.
Joshi, in the same field of endeavor, teaches two or more different wavelengths are within a near-infrared range of the IR light range (see 0006; The first wavelength range can include 940 nm. The second wavelength range can include 850 nm.).
It would have been obvious (before the effective filing date of the claimed invention) or (at the time the invention was made) to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Ngo with Joshi to utilize the cited limitations as suggested by Joshi. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to provide an added later of security to the system (see 00015). Furthermore, the prior art collectively includes each element claimed (though not all in the same reference), and one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements in the manner explained above using known engineering design, interface and/or programming techniques, without changing a “fundamental” operating principle of Ngo with Joshi, while the teaching of Joshi continues to perform the same function as originally taught prior to being combined, in order to produce the repeatable and predictable result. It is for at least the aforementioned reasons that the examiner has reached a conclusion of obviousness with respect to the claim in question.
Regarding claim 13, Ngo discloses a method, comprising: emitting, by an illumination source, light at a first wavelength towards an eye region of a user to be imaged by a camera (see fig. 1, 2, abstract; multispectral illuminators is designed to sequentially activate for short periods of time to expose the iris to spectral bands in the 405 nm – 1550 nm range); capturing, by the camera, an image of the eye region at the first wavelength (see fig. 1, 2, abstract; capture and store iris images exposed under different wavelengths of illumination); emitting, by an illumination source, light at a second wavelength towards the eye region of the user to be imaged by the camera (see fig. 1, 2, abstract; multispectral illuminators is designed to sequentially activate for short periods of time to expose the iris to spectral bands in the 405 nm – 1550 nm range); capturing, by the camera, an image of the eye region at the second wavelength (see fig. 1, 2, abstract; capture and store iris images exposed under different wavelengths of illumination). Ngo does not teach expressly performing, by a controller comprising one or more processors, biometric authentication for the user based on the first and second images of the eye region of the user captured by the camera, wherein the first wavelength and the second wavelengths are within an infrared (IR) light range, and wherein the controller is configured to perform different respective portions of the biometric authentication based on the image of the eye region captured at the first wavelength within the IR light range and the images captured at the second wavelength within the IR light range.
Mogi, in the same field of endeavor, teaches performing, by a controller comprising one or more processors (see 0038; processor), biometric authentication for the user based on the first and second images of the eye region of the user captured by the camera (see 0015, 0018, 0006; a biometric authentication system is analyzed to determine if the image corresponds to an actual live person, or to an alternative representation (e.g., a photograph or other image of the live person printed on paper, or displayed on a high definition display device) of the live person…. the images captured using the camera 105 can be processed using an underlying biometric authentication system to identify/verify the user. In some implementations, the biometric authentication system may extract from the images, various features—such as features derived from the face, iris, vasculature underlying the sclera of the eye, or the periocular region….Specifically, this document describes technology in which a subject is imaged under at least two separate wavelength ranges such that the absorption/reflection characteristics of live tissues under the corresponding wavelength ranges differ by at least a threshold amount…. The first wavelength range can include 940 nm. The second wavelength range can include 850 nm.), wherein the first wavelength and the second wavelengths are within an infrared (IR) light range (see 0006; The first wavelength range can include 940 nm. The second wavelength range can include 850 nm.), and wherein the controller is configured to perform different respective portions of the biometric authentication (see 0015; 0021; This document presents an image analysis method in which an image captured using an image acquisition device of a biometric authentication system is analyzed to determine if the image corresponds to an actual live person, or to an alternative representation (e.g., a photograph or other image of the live person printed on paper, or displayed on a high definition display device) of the live person. Specifically, this document describes technology in which a subject is imaged under at least two separate wavelength ranges such that the absorption/reflection characteristics of live tissues under the corresponding wavelength ranges differ by at least a threshold amount. Spoof alternative representations such as photographs do not exhibit such differential characteristics, and this property can be used to discriminate between live subjects and spoof alternative representations. If the captured image is not determined to correspond to a live person, any further processing of the captured image by the biometric authentication system can be stopped, and any corresponding access attempt can be prevented immediately. Many biometric authentication systems involve authenticating a user to a secure system based on recognizing the user's face, eye-print, iris etc. Such biometric authentication systems involve capturing one or more images of a user, and executing corresponding recognition processes on the captured image. Malicious attempts to breach the security of such biometric authentication systems can include presenting an alternative representation of a live person to gain access to an account or other privileges associated with the identity of the corresponding live person. Such attacks are generally known as spoof attacks, and the reliability/security of a biometric authentication system can be determined by the ability of the system to differentiate between a live person and corresponding alternative representations (also referred to as spoofs). The technology described herein improves security/reliability of biometric authentication systems that rely on recognizing a user based on face recognition, eye-print recognition, iris recognition etc. Specifically, this document describes preprocessing steps that allow for determining whether the captured image corresponds to an actual live person or a spoof alternative representation such as a printed or displayed image/photograph of the live person. Upon detecting that the captured image is a spoof, any further processing of the image to allow access to the corresponding secure system can be prevented, thereby adding an added layer of security to the system….. Such quick determination at the front end of an authentication process can be used to reduce redundant processing (e.g., on an image that is of a spoof alternative representation), which in turn can improve the efficiency of the underlying biometric authentication process) based on the image of the eye region captured at the first wavelength within the IR light range and the images captured at the second wavelength within the IR light range (see 0021-0022, 00030; the differences between the corresponding images can be analyzed to determine whether the subject is a live human being or a spoof alternative representation thereof… if the difference between the images is higher than the target value, the subject in the image can be identified as a live person, and an authentication process can be initiated to determine if the live person is authorized to access the underlying secure system… FIGS. 4A and 4B show image pairs captured under two different wavelength ranges for a live human being and a spoof alternative representation, respectively).
It would have been obvious (before the effective filing date of the claimed invention) or (at the time the invention was made) to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Ngo to utilize the cited limitations as suggested by Joshi. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to provide an added later of security to the system (see 00015). Furthermore, the prior art collectively includes each element claimed (though not all in the same reference), and one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements in the manner explained above using known engineering design, interface and/or programming techniques, without changing a “fundamental” operating principle of Ngo, while the teaching of Joshi continues to perform the same function as originally taught prior to being combined, in order to produce the repeatable and predictable result. It is for at least the aforementioned reasons that the examiner has reached a conclusion of obviousness with respect to the claim in question.
Regarding claim 16, Ngo with Joshi teaches all elements as mentioned above in claim 13. Ngo with Joshi does not teach two or more different wavelengths are within a near-infrared range of the IR light range.
Joshi, in the same field of endeavor, teaches two or more different wavelengths are within a near-infrared range of the IR light range (see 0006; The first wavelength range can include 940 nm. The second wavelength range can include 850 nm.).
It would have been obvious (before the effective filing date of the claimed invention) or (at the time the invention was made) to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Ngo with Joshi to utilize the cited limitations as suggested by Joshi. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to provide an added later of security to the system (see 00015). Furthermore, the prior art collectively includes each element claimed (though not all in the same reference), and one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements in the manner explained above using known engineering design, interface and/or programming techniques, without changing a “fundamental” operating principle of Ngo with Joshi, while the teaching of Joshi continues to perform the same function as originally taught prior to being combined, in order to produce the repeatable and predictable result. It is for at least the aforementioned reasons that the examiner has reached a conclusion of obviousness with respect to the claim in question.
Regarding claim 5, Ngo with Mogi teaches all element as mentioned above in claim 1. Ngo with Mogi does not teach expressly perform biometric authentication for the user based on two or more images of the eye region of the user captured by the camera at the two or more different wavelengths, a first image at a first wavelength is used for a first portion of the biometric authentication comprising eye biometric authentication, and a second image at a second wavelength is used for a second portion of the biometric authentication comprising anti-spoofing.
Joshi, in the same field of endeavor, teaches perform biometric authentication for the user based on two or more images of the eye region of the user captured by the camera at the two or more different wavelengths, a first image at a first wavelength is used for a first portion of the biometric authentication comprising eye biometric authentication, and a second image at a second wavelength is used for a second portion of the biometric authentication comprising anti-spoofing (see 0002-0004, 0021-0022, 0015, 0018, 0026-0029, 0019, 0035-0036).
It would have been obvious (before the effective filing date of the claimed invention) or (at the time the invention was made) to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Ngo with Mogi to utilize the cited limitations as suggested by Joshi. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to enable spoof detection while reducing costs (see 0007). Furthermore, the prior art collectively includes each element claimed (though not all in the same reference), and one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements in the manner explained above using known engineering design, interface and/or programming techniques, without changing a “fundamental” operating principle of Ngo with Mogi, while the teaching of Joshi continues to perform the same function as originally taught prior to being combined, in order to produce the repeatable and predictable result. It is for at least the aforementioned reasons that the examiner has reached a conclusion of obviousness with respect to the claim in question.
Regarding claim 14, Ngo with Mogi teaches all element as mentioned above in claim 13. Ngo with Mogi does not teach expressly performing biometric authentication for the user based on the first and second images of the eye region of the user captured by the camera comprises using the first image in a first portion of the biometric authentication comprising eve biometric authentication and using the second image in a second portion of the biometric authentication comprising anti- spoofing.
Joshi, in the same field of endeavor, teaches performing biometric authentication for the user based on the first and second images of the eye region of the user captured by the camera comprises using the first image in a first portion of the biometric authentication comprising eve biometric authentication and using the second image in a second portion of the biometric authentication comprising anti- spoofing (see 0002-0004, 0021-0022, 0015, 0018, 0026-0029, 0019, 0035-0036).
It would have been obvious (before the effective filing date of the claimed invention) or (at the time the invention was made) to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Ngo with Mogi to utilize the cited limitations as suggested by Joshi. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to enable spoof detection while reducing costs (see 0007). Furthermore, the prior art collectively includes each element claimed (though not all in the same reference), and one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements in the manner explained above using known engineering design, interface and/or programming techniques, without changing a “fundamental” operating principle of Ngo with Mogi, while the teaching of Joshi continues to perform the same function as originally taught prior to being combined, in order to produce the repeatable and predictable result. It is for at least the aforementioned reasons that the examiner has reached a conclusion of obviousness with respect to the claim in question.
Regarding claims 15, 17-20, Ngo teaches performing biometric authentication for the user based on the first and second images of the eye region of the user captured by the camera comprises: processing the first and second images to select one or more biometric aspects of the eye region; and performing the biometric authentication for the user based at least in part on the selected one or more biometric aspects (see section III, C);
eye region includes one or more of an iris, an eye, a periorbital region, and a portion of the user's face (see fig. 1, 6);
two or more light-emitting elements configured to emit light towards the eye region to be imaged by the camera, wherein different ones of the two or more light-emitting elements are configured to emit light at the first and second wavelengths (see section II, A, fig. 1. 3);
light-emitting diodes (LEDs) (see section II, A, fig. 1. 3);
infrared (IR) light sources, and wherein the camera is an infrared camera (see section II, A, fig. 1. 3).
Claims 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ngo et al (IEEE: “Design and Implementation of a multispectral iris capture system”) with Joshi et al (US 2020/0250448 A1), and further in view of Rowe (US 2005/0271258 A1).
Regarding claims 3-4, Ngo with Joshi teaches all element as mentioned above in claim 1. Ngo with Joshi does not teach expressly concurrently emit the two or more different wavelengths of light, and wherein the camera is configured to concurrently capture the two or more images at the two or more different wavelengths; concurrently capture the two or more images at the two or more different wavelengths, the camera comprises a photosensor comprising an array of pixel elements, wherein different ones of the pixel elements are configured to capture light at respective ones of the two or more different wavelengths.
Rowe, in the same field of endeavor, teaches concurrently emit the two or more different wavelengths of light, and wherein the camera is configured to concurrently capture the two or more images at the two or more different wavelengths (see 0012-0016); concurrently capture the two or more images at the two or more different wavelengths, the camera comprises a photosensor comprising an array of pixel elements, wherein different ones of the pixel elements are configured to capture light at respective ones of the two or more different wavelengths (see 0012-0016).
It would have been obvious (before the effective filing date of the claimed invention) or (at the time the invention was made) to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Ngo with Joshi to utilize the cited limitations as suggested by Rowe. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to enable better performance in the presence of bright, broad-band ambient lighting (see 0059). Furthermore, the prior art collectively includes each element claimed (though not all in the same reference), and one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements in the manner explained above using known engineering design, interface and/or programming techniques, without changing a “fundamental” operating principle of Ngo with Joshi, while the teaching of Rowe continues to perform the same function as originally taught prior to being combined, in order to produce the repeatable and predictable result. It is for at least the aforementioned reasons that the examiner has reached a conclusion of obviousness with respect to the claim in question.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ngo et al (IEEE: “Design and Implementation of a multispectral iris capture system”) with Joshi et al (US 2020/0250448 A1), and further in view of McHugh et al (US 6,289,113 B1).
Regarding claim 12, Ngo with Joshi teaches all element as mentioned above in claim 1. Ngo with Joshi does not teach expressly a component of a head-mounted device (HMD), a handheld device, or a wall-mounted device.
McHugh, in the same field of endeavor, teaches a component of a head-mounted device (HMD), a handheld device, or a wall-mounted device (see abstract).
It would have been obvious (before the effective filing date of the claimed invention) or (at the time the invention was made) to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Ngo with Joshi to utilize the cited limitations as suggested by McHugh The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to simply installation, support and service (see col. 13, lines 64-col. 14, lines 15). Furthermore, the prior art collectively includes each element claimed (though not all in the same reference), and one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements in the manner explained above using known engineering design, interface and/or programming techniques, without changing a “fundamental” operating principle of Ngo with Joshi, while the teaching of McHugh continues to perform the same function as originally taught prior to being combined, in order to produce the repeatable and predictable result. It is for at least the aforementioned reasons that the examiner has reached a conclusion of obviousness with respect to the claim in question.
Conclusion
Claims 1-20 are rejected.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EDWARD PARK. The examiner’s contact information is as follows:
Telephone: (571)270-1576 | Fax: 571.270.2576 | Edward.Park@uspto.gov
For email communications, please notate MPEP 502.03, which outlines procedures pertaining to communications via the internet and authorization. A sample authorization form is cited within MPEP 502.03, section II.
The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9-6 CST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Andrew Moyer, can be reached on (571) 272-9523. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/EDWARD PARK/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2675