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
Claim(s) 1, 4, 7, 8, 9, 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sousedik (“Quality of Fingerprint Scans captured using Optical Coherence Tomography”, 2014).
Claim(s) 2, 3, and 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sousedik, in view of Darlow (“Efficient internal and surface fingerprint extraction and blending using optical coherence tomography”, 2015).
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sousedik, in view of Lee (“3D Contact Position Estimation of Image-Based Areal Soft Tactile Sensor with Printed Array Markers and Image Sensors”, 2020).
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. JP2021-043015, filed on 03/17/2021.
Response to Amendment
The preliminary amendments filed 02/19/2026 has been entered.
Claims 1, 9, and 10 were amended.
Claims 1-10 remain pending in the application.
The Specification objection involving the informalities have been withdrawn due to the amendments.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments (Remarks filed 02/19/2026) have been considered but are not fully persuasive.
Applicant makes the following argument on page 7, ¶2-3, reproduced below:
PNG
media_image1.png
446
1022
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Upon further review of the reference and in light of applicant's argument, the examiner respectfully disagrees as follows: first of all, Sousedik Figure 1 (pg 3), along with lines below the figure, reproduced below:
PNG
media_image2.png
456
560
media_image2.png
Greyscale
. The inner fingerprint (interpreted as the second plane) requires depth, or the Z-axis, also called the z-plane. As one with ordinary skill in the art would know from 3D Cartesian coordinates, the different axes are orthogonal, or perpendicular to each other. Regarding the Sousedik reference, the z-axis is involved with the depth direction, which is perpendicular to the x-axis (or x-plane), y-axis (or y-plane), and xy-plane. Further, the xy-plane involves the outer fingerprint (interpreted as involving the first plane). Additionally, the instant specifications and drawings make reference Figures 7A-7C (first feature amount of xy-plane) and Figure 8-10 (second feature amount of a plane involving depth, which is the z-axis or z-plane). If this is what Applicant is referring to for the amended limitations (Applicant is also respectfully reminded that limitations from the specifications may not be read into the claims, See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993)), then this is obvious 3D Cartesian coordinates from the field of mathematics and provides further support that Sousedik does teach the amended limitations; as stated above, one with ordinary skill in the art would know these planes are orthogonal, or perpendicular to each other.
Regarding the arguments for claim 6, the arguments rely on Sousedik not teaching or suggesting limitations of claim 1. As Sousedik does teach the limitations of claim 1, the argument shall be ignored; further, only quotes are presented as opposed to evidence and explanation for why Lee (similarly with Darlow) does not cure the alleged deficiencies of Sousedik.
Accordingly, the claims, as they are currently written, remain rejected.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed. The new title is an improvement, but only indicates luminance data. The title describes almost anything involving luminance, such as luminance data for astronomical information data (stars) or the luminance data of algae under a microscope. Applicant may draw inspiration from the DERWENT title (note: applicant is not required to copy it exactly): “Information Processing Apparatus E.g. Data Processing Server, Has Calculation Unit That Calculates Extraction Depth For Extraction Of Pattern Of Skin Based On Feature Amounts”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 4, 7, 8, 9, 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sousedik (“Quality of Fingerprint Scans captured using Optical Coherence Tomography”, 2014).
Regarding claims 1, 9, and 10, Sousedik teaches An information processing apparatus (Sousedik, Abstract: “This paper’s contribution consists of a novel approach for estimation of the layered structure of an OCT fingerprint scan as a set of analytical surfaces and a subsequent analysis of the quality property of the obtained scan that is related to noncompliant behavior of the capture subjects.”) comprising:
a memory configured to store instructions (Sousedik, pg 4, column 2, first full paragraph, reproduced below:
PNG
media_image3.png
164
552
media_image3.png
Greyscale
. “Neural network” is being interpreted to involve a memory configured to store instructions (the procedure)); and
a processor configured to execute the instructions (Sousedik, see image above, “neural network” is being interpreted to involve using a processor) to:
acquire a first feature amount acquired from luminance data of a first plane facing a surface of a skin among three-dimensional luminance data of the skin (Sousedik, pg 3, column 2, last paragraph, reproduced below:
PNG
media_image4.png
122
562
media_image4.png
Greyscale
. The “candidate points” of “S_outer” are being interpreted as “first feature amount” of a “first plane facing a surface of a skin”. “OCT scan” is being interpreted as “three-dimensional luminance data of the skin”. Supported by pg 3, column 1, Section 3.2, ¶1: “The outer surface of the finger generates a thin layer of strong reflections that provide for a highly detailed representation of the 3D structure of the outer fingerprint pattern.”);
acquire a second feature amount (Sousedik, see pg 3, column 2, last paragraph image above, “candidate points” of “S_inner” is being interpreted as “second feature amount”) acquired from luminance data of a second plane (Sousedik, see pg 3, column 2, last paragraph image above, “S_inner” is being interpreted as “second plane”) including a depth direction of the skin among the three-dimensional luminance data (Sousedik, pg 5, column 1, items 4 and 5, reproduced below:
PNG
media_image5.png
182
548
media_image5.png
Greyscale
. Evaluating the z-distance is being interpreted as part of “a depth direction” that uses the OCT scan data of the skin); and
calculate an extraction depth for extraction of a pattern of the skin based on the first feature amount and the second feature amount (Sousedik, pg 5, column 1, paragraph after numbered items, reproduced below:
PNG
media_image6.png
118
564
media_image6.png
Greyscale
.Which shows an extraction depth was used to extract the pattern based on the first feature amount (outer) and second feature amount (inner); the z function, along with items 4 and 5 above, are being interpreted to involve calculated an extraction depth. Demonstrated by the next paragraph: “The detected outer and inner fingerprint of a good quality scan is shown in Fig. 5.”, which shows a skin pattern, or finger print),
wherein the first plane and the second plane are perpendicular to each other (Sousedik, pg 3, Figure 1, reproduced below:
PNG
media_image2.png
456
560
media_image2.png
Greyscale
. The z-axis [involved with depth] is perpendicular to the xy-plane, where the first plane [outer fingerprint] is involved. As the second plane [the inner fingerprint] is involved with depth, or the z-axis, which is perpendicular to the xy-plane. One with ordinary skill in the art would know the all the axes of 3D Cartesian coordinates are orthogonal, or perpendicular, to each other).
Regarding claim 4, Sousedik teaches The information processing apparatus according to claim 1,
wherein the processor is further configured to execute the instructions to acquire a third feature amount (Sousedik, pg 5, column 1, items 1-6 and the paragraph afterwards, reproduced below:
PNG
media_image7.png
748
616
media_image7.png
Greyscale
. Which shows Item 4 with the “currently estimated surface”, which is being interpreted as a third feature amount) based on continuity (Sousedik, see image above, “represent the smooth surfaces” is being interpreted as “continuity”), between regions of the three-dimensional luminance data (Sousedik, see image above, “smooth surface” is being interpreted to include regions between 3-D luminance data), of at least one of the first feature amount and the second feature amount (Sousedik, see image above, “outer fingerprint candidate” is being interpreted as “first feature amount”. “inner” fingerprint candidate is being interpreted as “second feature amount”), and
wherein the extraction depth (Sousedik, see image above, “z” is being interpreted as “extraction depth”) is calculated further based on the third feature amount (Sousedik, see image above, which shows the “z”, or extraction depth, is based on the “currently estimated surface”).
Regarding claim 7, Sousedik teaches The information processing apparatus according to claim 1,
wherein the processor is further configured to execute the instructions to generate a pattern image (Sousedik, pg 5, column 1, 2 paragraphs before Section 3.4, reproduced below:
PNG
media_image8.png
200
622
media_image8.png
Greyscale
. “detected…fingerprint” is being interpreted as “generate a patter”) by combining luminance data (Sousedik, see image above, “OCT fingerprint scan” is being interpreted as “luminance data” which is combined to create the fingerprints shown in Figure 5 right side, bottom row) at the extraction depth (Sousedik, pg 5, item 3, reproduced below:
PNG
media_image9.png
140
596
media_image9.png
Greyscale
. “z-distance” is being interpreted to involve an “extraction depth”) calculated from each of a plurality of regions (Sousedik, see image above that includes Section 3.4, “OCT fingerprint scan” is being interpreted as having a plurality of regions that involve the candidate points in item 4 above) of the three-dimensional luminance data (Sousedik, see the two images above, the x-, y-, and z-axes shows 3D luminance data from the OCT fingerprint scan).
Regarding claim 8, Sousedik teaches The information processing apparatus according to claim 1,
wherein the processor is further configured to execute the instructions to generate display information (Sousedik, pg 5, column 2, Figure 5 text, reproduced below:
PNG
media_image10.png
90
616
media_image10.png
Greyscale
, “Visualization” is being interpreted to involve generating “display information”) for displaying a tomographic image (Sousedik, see image above, “OCT” is being interpreted as involving a tomographic image, or Optical Coherence Tomography) based on luminance data on the second plane (Sousedik, see image above, “inner fingerprint” is being interpreted as second plane from the OCT luminance data) and information indicating the extraction depth (Sousedik, pg 5, column 1, item 4, the z-distance is being interpreted as involving an extraction depth) that are superimposed on each other (Sousedik, pg 5, Figure 5, left two images shows the second plane being superimposed with depth as it is away from the first plane, or outer OCT scan).
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.
Claim(s) 2, 3, and 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sousedik, in view of Darlow (“Efficient internal and surface fingerprint extraction and blending using optical coherence tomography”, 2015).
Regarding claim 2, Sousedik teaches The information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the extraction depth is calculated (Sousedik, pg 5, column 1, paragraph after numbered items, reproduced below:
PNG
media_image6.png
118
564
media_image6.png
Greyscale
.Which shows an extraction depth z is calculated)
However, Sousedik does not appear to specifically teach weighted addition of first and second feature amounts. Although, Sousedik does teach weighted addition in neural network function on pg 4, column 2, ¶2)
Pertaining to the same field of endeavor, Darlow teaches
based on a value acquired by performing a weighted addition (Darlow, pg 9264, column 1, lines 1-8, reproduced below:
PNG
media_image11.png
283
752
media_image11.png
Greyscale
. “Averaging” is being interpreted to involve addition. The combined fingerprints using “weighted local-quality assessments” is being interpreted to involve “weighted addition”) of the first feature amount (Darlow, see image above, “surface” fingerprint is being interpreted as “first feature amount”) and the second feature amount (Darlow, see image above, “internal” fingerprint is being interpreted as “second feature amount”) by a predetermined weight (Darlow, see image above, “weighted local-quality assessments” is being interpreted to involve a predetermined weight as shown in Algorithm 1 on the same page: “m1, m2, and m3 are multiplication factors for the best, second-best, and worst pixel-wise scores”).
Sousedik and Darlow are considered to be analogous art because they are directed to OCT fingerprint extraction. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method and system for OCT fingerprint extraction with weighted addition (as taught by Sousedik) to include weighted addition of first and second feature amounts (as taught by Darlow) because the combination provides an improvement to fingerprint extraction and spoof detection (Darlow, Abstract).
Regarding claim 3, Sousedik teaches The information processing apparatus according to claim 2, wherein the extraction depth is calculated (Sousedik, pg 5, column 1, paragraph after numbered items, reproduced below:
PNG
media_image6.png
118
564
media_image6.png
Greyscale
.Which shows an extraction depth z is calculated)
However, Sousedik does not appear to specifically teach based on a plurality of values acquired by performing the weight addition using a plurality of different weights.
Pertaining to the same field of endeavor, Darlow teaches
based on a plurality of values (Darlow, pg 9264, column 1, first incomplete paragraph and the Algorithm 1 text, reproduced below:
PNG
media_image12.png
452
648
media_image12.png
Greyscale
. “These three fingerprints are combined” are being interpreted to involve a “plurality of values”) acquired by performing the weight addition (Averaging” is being interpreted to involve addition. The combined fingerprints using “weighted local-quality assessments” is being interpreted to involve “weighted addition”) using a plurality of different weights (Darlow, see image above, “m1, m2, and m3 are multiplication factors for the best, second-best, and worst pixel-wise scores” are being interpreted as plurality of different weights.).
Sousedik and Darlow are considered to be analogous art because they are directed to OCT fingerprint extraction. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method and system for OCT fingerprint extraction with weighted addition (as taught by Sousedik) to include based on a plurality of values acquired by performing the weight addition using a plurality of different weights (as taught by Darlow) because the combination provides an improvement to fingerprint extraction and spoof detection (Darlow, Abstract).
Regarding claim 5, Sousedik teaches The information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the second feature amount is acquired (Sousedik, see pg 3, column 2, last paragraph image above, “candidate points” of “S_inner” is being interpreted as “second feature amount”)
However, Sousedik does not appear to specifically teach luminance gradient.
Pertaining to the same field of endeavor, Darlow teaches
based on a luminance gradient (Darlow, pg 9262, column 2, lines 1-2: “b is the gradient of the fitted straight line”; see Darlow image below: “Intensity” is being interpreted as “luminance”) in the depth direction of the skin (Darlow, pg 9262, column 1, Section C, reproduced below:
PNG
media_image13.png
922
658
media_image13.png
Greyscale
. “The relationship between the depth and the intensity” is being interpreted as involving a “depth direction”).
Sousedik and Darlow are considered to be analogous art because they are directed to OCT fingerprint extraction. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method and system for OCT fingerprint extraction with weighted addition and luminance (as taught by Sousedik) to include a luminance gradient (as taught by Darlow) because the combination provides an improvement to fingerprint extraction and spoof detection (Darlow, Abstract).
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sousedik, in view of Lee (“3D Contact Position Estimation of Image-Based Areal Soft Tactile Sensor with Printed Array Markers and Image Sensors”, 2020).
Regarding claim 6, Sousedik teaches The information processing apparatus according to claim 1,
However, Sousedik does not appear to specifically teach force-based depth extraction; although, Sousedik does teach finger position change (pg 5, Section 3.4).
Pertaining to the same field of endeavor, Lee teaches
wherein the processor is further configured to execute the instructions to acquire a fourth feature amount based on a force (Lee, pg 8, last paragraph, reproduced below:
PNG
media_image14.png
158
1036
media_image14.png
Greyscale
. “Pressing each depth” is being interpreted as “force”; “depth values for area and displacement” are being interpreted to involve a “fourth feature amount”) received by a measuring surface from the skin (Lee, see image above, “finger-tip” is being interpreted as having a “measuring surface from the skin”) when measuring the three-dimensional luminance data (Lee, Abstract: “The purpose of this study is to estimate 3D contact position of a novel image-based areal soft tactile sensor (IASTS) using printed array markers and multiple cameras”. Which is being interpreted as involving “three-dimensional luminance data”), and
wherein the extraction depth is calculated further based on the fourth feature amount (Lee, see image above, “To obtain a depth value that can be estimated” is being interpreted as “extraction depth is calculated” that is based on the fourth feature amount).
Sousedik and Lee are considered to be analogous art because they are directed to image based human-machine interactions. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method and system for OCT fingerprint extraction with weighted addition (as taught by Sousedik) to include force-based depth extraction (as taught by Lee) because the combination provides an improvement to cost, comfort, and safety for human-machine interaction (Lee, Abstract).
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.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Hojjatoleslami et al (“OCT skin image enhancement through attenuation compensation”) teaches epidermis and dermis layer feature amount extraction with depth direction.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHNNY B DUONG whose telephone number is (571)272-1358. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 10a-9p (ET).
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, Matthew Bella can be reached at (571)272-7778. 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.B.D./Examiner, Art Unit 2667
/MATTHEW C BELLA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2667