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 .
The response received on 12/10/2025 has been placed in the file and was considered by the examiner. An action on the merit follows.
Response to Amendment
The amendments filed on 2025 December 10 have been fully considered. Response to these amendments is provided below.
Summary of Amendment/ Arguments and Examiner’s Response:
The applicant has stated 112 rejections are addressed in page 5 of the remarks.
Most of the 112 rejections are addressed, but some remain and new rejections follow due to the amendments.
The applicant argues in the remarks on page 8 that Steinberg does not discloses the claimed limitations, because Steimberg teaches “automatically crop the face”; and therefore the face parts are not removed and thus the dimensions are not reduced.
The examiner disagrees with the arguments. The claim states “performing dimension reduction on the biological signal data”. Therefore, interpreting the image digital image of figure 8, step 802 as the “biological signal data”, and cropping of the data as “dimension reduction”, the limitations are taught by the prior art. The applicant does not claim the face parts are removed, and does not even specify the biological signal data is related to a face. If the applicant wishes for a limitation to be interpreted into the claim, the applicant should provide such language in the claim. However, currently, the prior art teaches the claimed limitations.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 5 is 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 5 recites the limitation “the face” in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Later, the applicant claims “a face” in line 7 and “the face” in the last line. It is unclear of different faces are being claimed, and if so, which face the applicant is referring to. It appears as if, however, the applicant is referring to a same face between all the above recitations.
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 1, 3, 4, 7, 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20220277070 (Robert Jose et al) in view of U.S. Patent No. 20090238419 (Steinberg et al).
Regarding claim 1, Robert Jose et al discloses a method for identity verification (fig. 6), wherein at least some initial low-sensitivity information about a person is stored in a database, comprising: obtaining the identity of the person through a login prompt (fig. 6, item 612); searching for the initial low-sensitivity information associated with the person from the database/ storage (fig. 4, item 438, 422; page 9, paragraph 72) based on the identity of the person by finding the corresponding biometric signature to the logged in user profile (fig. 6, item 614); obtaining biological signal data from the person (fig. 6, item 602) according to data category of the initial low-sensitivity information associated with the person, since it is of the same category, i.e. face or fingerprint (fig. 2, fig. 3); sampling the biological signal data from the person to generate real-time low-sensitivity information associated with the person by receiving the biometric input (fig. 6, item 602) and further determining characteristics (fig. 6, item 604); determining the data category and a data form for comparing the real-time low-sensitivity information with the initial low-sensitivity information, the comparing occurring in fig. 6, item 616, in which it is determined that the data category is either a fingerprint/ face as correspondingly displayed in fig. 2, item 210, fig. 3, screen of item 312 and the data form is the form in which the data is displayed on the display of fig. 2, item 210 and fig. 3, screen of item 312 for comparison; and graphically displaying the real-time low-sensitivity information and the initial low-sensitivity information corresponding to the data category and the data form (fig. 3, item 210, fig. 3, screen of item 312, fig. 6, item 616, 618).
Robert Jose et al does not disclose expressly performing dimension reduction on the biological signal data to generate the real time low sensitivity information
Steinberg et al discloses performing dimension reduction on the input biological signal data to generate the real time low sensitivity information by cropping the face of the input digital image of the query face (fig. 8, item 804).
Robert Jose et al & Steinberg et al are combinable because they are from the same field of endeavor, i.e. comparing biometric images.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to crop the input image.
The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to provide a faster, more robust method by cropping insignificant data.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine the method of Robert Jose et al with the cropping of Steinberg et al to obtain the invention as specified in claim 1.
Regarding claim 3, Steinberg et al discloses receiving a control signal from the user (fig. 9, input that allows for indicating match of 964 or no match, item 972) to confirm that the real-time low-sensitivity information, i.e. the query, matches the initial low-sensitivity information, the database image (fig. 9, item 962). Robert Jose et al also discloses a control signal from the user (fig. 7, item 714, fig. 9, item 906)
Regarding claim 4, Robert Jose et al discloses the data category comprises at least one of face images (fig. 2, item 202, 210), voiceprints, palm prints, and handwriting.
Regarding claim 7, Steinberg et al discloses a data form for displaying two images for comparison comprises at least one of translucent overlapping, because the two images are displayed concurrently and overlapped (page 5, paragraph 71), vertically cropped image stitching, i.e. the display of the two images together next to each other, and thus stitched (page 5, paragraph 71) the images being vertically cropped in the image cropping (fig. 8, item 804, fig. 6, item 604), and horizontally cropped image stitching, i.e. the display of the two images together next to each other, and thus stitched (page 5, paragraph 71) the images being horizontally cropped in the image cropping (fig. 8, item 804, fig. 6, item 604).
Regarding claim 9, Steinberg et al discloses for the data category of the face images (fig. 8, face images), the method further comprises: performing the vertically cropped image stitching on the real-time low- sensitivity information, i.e. query, and the initial low-sensitivity information, i.e. database image, since the image stitching involves displaying the images stitched next to each other (page 5, paragraph 71).
Regarding claim 10, Steinberg et al discloses for the data category of the face images (fig. 8, face images), the method further comprises: performing the horizontally cropped image stitching on the real-time low- sensitivity information, i.e. query, and the initial low-sensitivity information, i.e. database image, since the image stitching involves displaying the images stitched next to each other (page 5, paragraph 71).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Robert Jose et al in view of Steinberg et al, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20030149614 (Andrus et al)
Regarding claim 2, Robert Jose et al (as modified by Steinberg et al) discloses all of the claimed elements as set forth above and incorporated herein by reference.
Robert Jose et al (as modified by Steinberg et al) does not disclose expressly obtaining a candidate list for matching the identity of the person; and receiving a control signal to select the person from the candidate list.
Andrus et al discloses obtaining a candidate list for matching the identity of the person, i.e. a dropdown menu of known users (page 5, paragraph 58); and receiving a control signal to select the person from the candidate list, from the user input 604 (page 5, paragraph 58).
Robert Jose et al (as modified by Steinberg et al) &Andrus et al are combinable because they are from the same field of endeavor, i.e. user id input.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use a drop down menu/ list.
The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to provide a more efficient, user-friendly system.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Robert Jose et al (as modified by Steinberg et al) with Andrus et al to obtain the invention as specified in claim 2.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Robert Jose et al in view of Steinberg et al, as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent No. 6792135 (Toyama).
Regarding claim 5, Robert Jose et al (as modified by Steinberg et al) discloses all of the claimed elements as set forth above and incorporated herein by reference. Steinberg et al further discloses when for data category of the face images (fig. 8, face images), the step of sampling and performing dimension reduction on the biological signal data from the person comprises: retaining the facial features by cropping the facial image to the detected facial region (fig. 8, item 804) and storing the part of the face in the face image corresponding to the relevant part of the face (fig. 8, item 804, 806).
Robert Jose et al (as modified by Steinberg et al) does not disclose expressly cropping the facial image to the detected facial region includes utilizing a facial feature detector to capture multiple feature points in the face images; carrying out cutting according to a distribution of the feature points; leaving a portion of the feature points corresponding to a part of the face; and capturing and storing the part of a face in a face image and the portion of the feature points corresponding to the part of the face.
Toyama discloses cropping the facial image to the detected facial region (fig. 2) includes utilizing a facial feature detector (fig. 2, item 210) to capture multiple feature points in the face images, (fig. 2, item 210, fig. 3, item 330); carrying out cutting according to a distribution of the feature points, i.e. cropping according to the distribution/ relationship of the points (fig. 3, item 350); leaving a portion of the feature points corresponding to a part of the face by leaving the face region points (fig. 3, item 360, 380); and capturing and storing the part of a face in a face image the portion of the feature points corresponding to the part of the face by outputting the face information (fig. 2, item 380), or even, by simply going the process of fig. 3, which captures and stores the part of the face image and the portion of feature points in order to undergo the processing of fig. 3.
Robert Jose et al (as modified by Steinberg et al) and Toyama are combinable because they are from the same field of endeavor, i.e. cropping facial images.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use feature points and their distribution to determine the face portion.
The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to provide a more robust system by considering the placement of features.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Robert Jose et al (as modified by Steinberg et al) with the face detection of Toyama to obtain the invention as specified in claim 5.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KATHLEEN YUAN DULANEY whose telephone number is (571)272-2902. The examiner can normally be reached M1:9am-5pm, th1:9am-1pm, fri1 9am-3pm, m2: 9am-5pm, t2:9-5 th2:9am-5pm, f2: 9am-5pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Emily Terrell can be reached at 5712703717. 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.
/KATHLEEN Y DULANEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2666 1/5/2026