DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the America Invents Act (AIA ).
Response and Claim Status
The instant Office action is responsive to the response received February 2, 2026 (the Response).
In response to the Response, the previous (1) rejection of claims 1 and 3–8 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a); (2) rejection of claims 7 and 8 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b); (3) rejections of claims 1 and 4–6 under 35 U.S.C. § 103
are WITHDRAWN.
Claims 1 and 3–8 are currently pending.
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. § 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.
Samadani and Isberg
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejection of claims 1, 5, and 6 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being obvious over Samadani et al. (US 2018/0307815 A1; filed Apr. 19, 2017) in view of Isberg et al. (US 2021/0144342 A1; PCT filed Mar. 13, 2017)(see Response 7) have been considered but are moot.
Samadani and Sato
Claims 1, 5, and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being obvious over Samadani in view of Sato (US 2014/0039317 A1; filed Sept. 27, 2013).
Regarding claim 1, while Samadani teaches an information processing system (fig. 1) comprising:
an imaging apparatus (fig. 1, item 104) that generates a plurality of images (fig. 5, items 546a–546d; fig. 6, item 610) in which a target (fig. 5 illustrates the face of a person) appears, by imaging the target continuously in a time series (“(e.g., image sensor(s) 104 and/or image obtainer 114) may obtain (e.g., capture) a set of image frames (e.g., video) at a high frame rate (e.g., ≥120 FPS, ≥240 FPS, ≥480 FPS, ≥960 FPS, etc.)” at ¶ 40); and
an information processing apparatus (fig. 7, item 102) that authenticates (fig. 6, item 620) the target by using at least one of the plurality of images,
the information processing apparatus including:
at least one memory (fig. 1, item 126) storing instructions; and
at least one processor (fig. 1, item 112) configured to execute the instructions to:
extract, from each of the plurality of images, a feature quantity (fig. 5, item 548; fig. 6, item 612) of the target that changes in accordance with a movement (“a micro-motion may be represented as a time sequence of the motions” at ¶ 64) of the target, wherein a plurality of feature quantities (“one or more micro-motions of one or more face locations (e.g., edges of lips, eyes, eyelids, eyebrows, eyebrow shapes, nostrils, etc.)” at ¶ 64) change along with the time series; and
determine that the target is spoofing (“Some of the approaches described herein may allow detection of someone under duress, or alternately someone using a spoofing mask but having micro-motions different than the actual subject.” at ¶ 70) using a display (fig. 3, item 340; fig. 4, item 444; “spoofing mask” at ¶ 70), when the plurality of the feature quantities change discontinuously (“outliers (in space and/or in a time sequence) against the regular micro-expressions characteristic (e.g., micro-expression profile) of the subject (e.g., user)” at ¶ 70) in the time series among the plurality of images,
an imaging rate (“obtain a set of image frames at a frame rate (e.g., frame capture rate). For example, the electronic device 102 may capture the set of image frames at a frame rate or the electronic device 102 may receive a set of image frames that has been captured by another device at a frame rate.” at ¶ 49) indicating a number of times that the imaging apparatus images the target per unit time, and
a display rate (“a most common display refresh rate for smart phones (or tablets, or televisions, etc.).” at ¶ 49) of the display does not match (“To satisfy Nyquist criteria (e.g., sampling theorem), for instance, the sampling rate may be at least twice the highest rate of the display. For example, the frame rate may be at least twice the rate of a most common display refresh rate for smart phones (or tablets, or televisions, etc.). For instance, if a most common display refresh rate for smart phones is 60 FPS or hertz (Hz), the frame rate (e.g., frame capture rate) may be configured to be greater than or equal to 120 FPS (e.g., ≥120 FPS, ≥240 FPS, ≥480 FPS, ≥960 FPS, etc.).” at ¶ 49) the imaging rate of the imaging apparatus,
Samadani does not teach changing the imaging rate so that the display rate does not match the imaging rate.
Sato teaches changing an imaging rate so that a display rate does not match the imaging rate (“output frame rate of the bloodstream images is adjusted so as to be equal to or lower than the display frame rate of the monitor 2” at ¶ 112).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention for Samadani’s imaging rate to be changed so that Samadani’s display rate does not match the imaging rate as taught by Sato to improve visual quality and performance of displaying the images including motion blur, tearing, and eye strain.1
Regarding claim 5, while Samadani teaches an information processing apparatus (fig. 1, item 102) comprising:
at least one memory (fig. 1, item 126) configured to store instructions; and
at least one processor (fig. 1, item 112) configured to execute the instructions to:
extract, from each of a plurality of images (fig. 5, items 546a–546d; fig. 6, item 610) in which a target (fig. 5 illustrates the face of a person) appears and which are generated by an imaging apparatus (fig. 1, item 104) that images the target continuously in a time series (“(e.g., image sensor(s) 104 and/or image obtainer 114) may obtain (e.g., capture) a set of image frames (e.g., video) at a high frame rate (e.g., ≥120 FPS, ≥240 FPS, ≥480 FPS, ≥960 FPS, etc.)” at ¶ 40), a feature quantity (fig. 5, item 548; fig. 6, item 612) of the target that changes in accordance with a movement (“a micro-motion may be represented as a time sequence of the motions” at ¶ 64) of the target, wherein a plurality of feature quantities (“one or more micro-motions of one or more face locations (e.g., edges of lips, eyes, eyelids, eyebrows, eyebrow shapes, nostrils, etc.)” at ¶ 64) change along with the time series;
determine that the target is spoofing (“Some of the approaches described herein may allow detection of someone under duress, or alternately someone using a spoofing mask but having micro-motions different than the actual subject.” at ¶ 70) using a display (fig. 3, item 340; fig. 4, item 444; “spoofing mask” at ¶ 70), when the plurality of the feature quantities change discontinuously (“outliers (in space and/or in a time sequence) against the regular micro-expressions characteristic (e.g., micro-expression profile) of the subject (e.g., user)” at ¶ 70) in the time series among the plurality of images,
an imaging rate (“obtain a set of image frames at a frame rate (e.g., frame capture rate). For example, the electronic device 102 may capture the set of image frames at a frame rate or the electronic device 102 may receive a set of image frames that has been captured by another device at a frame rate.” at ¶ 49) indicating a number of times that the imaging apparatus images the target per unit time, and
a display rate (“a most common display refresh rate for smart phones (or tablets, or televisions, etc.).” at ¶ 49) of the display does not match (“To satisfy Nyquist criteria (e.g., sampling theorem), for instance, the sampling rate may be at least twice the highest rate of the display. For example, the frame rate may be at least twice the rate of a most common display refresh rate for smart phones (or tablets, or televisions, etc.). For instance, if a most common display refresh rate for smart phones is 60 FPS or hertz (Hz), the frame rate (e.g., frame capture rate) may be configured to be greater than or equal to 120 FPS (e.g., ≥120 FPS, ≥240 FPS, ≥480 FPS, ≥960 FPS, etc.).” at ¶ 49) the imaging rate of the imaging apparatus,
Samadani does not teach changing the imaging rate so that the display rate does not match the imaging rate.
Sato teaches changing an imaging rate so that a display rate does not match the imaging rate (“output frame rate of the bloodstream images is adjusted so as to be equal to or lower than the display frame rate of the monitor 2” at ¶ 112).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention for Samadani’s imaging rate to be changed so that Samadani’s display rate does not match the imaging rate as taught by Sato to improve visual quality and performance of displaying the images including motion blur, tearing, and eye strain.
Regarding claim 6, while Samadani an information processing method (fig. 6, item 600) comprising:
generating a plurality of images (fig. 5, items 546a–546d; fig. 6, item 610) in which a target (fig. 5 illustrates the face of a person) appears, by an imaging apparatus (fig. 1, item 104) that images the target continuously in a time series (“(e.g., image sensor(s) 104 and/or image obtainer 114) may obtain (e.g., capture) a set of image frames (e.g., video) at a high frame rate (e.g., ≥120 FPS, ≥240 FPS, ≥480 FPS, ≥960 FPS, etc.)” at ¶ 40);
extracting, from each of the plurality of images, a feature quantity (fig. 5, item 548; fig. 6, item 612) of the target that changes in accordance with a movement (“a micro-motion may be represented as a time sequence of the motions” at ¶ 64) of the target, wherein a plurality of feature quantities (“one or more micro-motions of one or more face locations (e.g., edges of lips, eyes, eyelids, eyebrows, eyebrow shapes, nostrils, etc.)” at ¶ 64) change along with the time series; and
determining that the target is spoofing using a display, when2 the plurality of the feature quantities change discontinuously in the time series among the plurality of images,
an imaging rate (“obtain a set of image frames at a frame rate (e.g., frame capture rate). For example, the electronic device 102 may capture the set of image frames at a frame rate or the electronic device 102 may receive a set of image frames that has been captured by another device at a frame rate.” at ¶ 49) indicating a number of times that the imaging apparatus images the target per unit time, and
a display rate (“a most common display refresh rate for smart phones (or tablets, or televisions, etc.).” at ¶ 49) of the display does not match (“To satisfy Nyquist criteria (e.g., sampling theorem), for instance, the sampling rate may be at least twice the highest rate of the display. For example, the frame rate may be at least twice the rate of a most common display refresh rate for smart phones (or tablets, or televisions, etc.). For instance, if a most common display refresh rate for smart phones is 60 FPS or hertz (Hz), the frame rate (e.g., frame capture rate) may be configured to be greater than or equal to 120 FPS (e.g., ≥120 FPS, ≥240 FPS, ≥480 FPS, ≥960 FPS, etc.).” at ¶ 49) the imaging rate of the imaging apparatus,
Samadani does not teach changing the imaging rate so that the display rate does not match the imaging rate.
Sato teaches changing an imaging rate so that a display rate does not match the imaging rate (“output frame rate of the bloodstream images is adjusted so as to be equal to or lower than the display frame rate of the monitor 2” at ¶ 112).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention for Samadani’s imaging rate to be changed so that Samadani’s display rate does not match the imaging rate as taught by Sato to improve visual quality and performance of displaying the images including motion blur, tearing, and eye strain.
Samadani, Sato, and Marano
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being obvious over Samadani in view of Sato, and in further view of Marano et al. (US 2019/0377959 A1; filed June 6, 2019).
Regarding claim 4, while Samadani teaches wherein the imaging apparatus images the target that moves, continuously in the time series (fig. 5, item 548; fig. 6, item 612),
Samadani does not teach the target moving toward the imaging apparatus.
Marano teaches a target moving toward an imaging apparatus (“receive a captured image or a recorded video of an object . . . moving towards the first camera 402” at ¶ 55).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention for Samadani’s target to move toward the imaging apparatus as taught by Marano “for detecting objects in traffic flow.” Marano ¶ 5.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3, 7, and 8 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure: US-8330800-B2; US-20180325380-A1; and KR-20230091100-A.
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 C.F.R. § 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 extension fee pursuant to § 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 DAVID P. ZARKA whose telephone number is (703) 756-5746. The Examiner can normally be reached Monday–Friday from 9:30AM–6PM ET.
If attempts to reach the Examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner’s supervisor, Vivek Srivastava, can be reached at (571) 272-7304. 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://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal. Should you have questions about access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at (866) 217-9197 (toll-free).
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.
/DAVID P ZARKA/PATENT EXAMINER, Art Unit 2449
1 “The court also rejected the notion that ‘an express written motivation to combine must appear in prior art references . . . .’” MPEP § 2143.01 (quoting Ruiz v. A.B. Chance Co., 357 F.3d 1270, 69 (Fed. Cir. 2004)).
2 The determining method-step (claim 6, line 7) is conditional and, therefore, need not be satisfied to meet claim 6. See Ex parte Schulhauser, No. 2013-007847, 2016 WL 6277792, at *3–5 (PTAB Apr. 28, 2016) (precedential) (holding that in a method claim, a step reciting a condition precedent does not need to be performed if the condition precedent is not met) (available at https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/Ex%20parte%20Schulhauser%202016_04_28.pdf; last visited Nov. 4, 2025); see also MPEP § 2111.04(II) (citing Schulhauser).