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 .
Status of Claims
This is the third Office Action on the merits. Claims 1-20 are currently pending.
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. CN 202210531409.0, filed on 05/29/2023.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 01/19/2026 has been entered.
In view of the 35 USC 103 rejections, Applicant’s amendment to the independent claim 1, and all dependent claims by virtue, has been acknowledged.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Pages 8-10, filed 01/19/2026, with respect to the 35 USC 103 rejections have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made as being unpatentable over Huang et al. (CN109249895A) in view of Manotas (US2013096733A1) in view of Van et al. (WO2018226265A1), and further in view of Chen et al. (CN104802748A).
Regarding Applicant’s argument for independent claim 1 rejected under 35 USC 103, Applicant argues that Huang, Manotas, Van ‘265, and all other cited references fail to teach or disclose “priority of recognizing key signals”. Examiner found argument persuasive, however, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Huang, Manotas, Van ‘265, and Chen, as discussed above. Furthermore, claims 2-20 depend directly or indirectly from claim 1 in view of Huang et al. (CN109249895A) in view of Manotas (US2013096733A1) in view of Van et al. (WO2018226265A1), and further in view of Chen et al. (CN104802748A), and by dependency of claim 1, are rejected under 35 USC 103, as discussed below.
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.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 2, and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang et al. (CN109249895A) in view of Manotas (US2013096733A1) in view of Van et al. (WO2018226265A1), and further in view of Chen et al. (CN104802748A), hereinafter Huang, Manotas, Van ‘265, and Chen.
Regarding claim 1, Huang teaches of an automotive device comprising ("a car capable of biometric identification", [0008]): a first sensing unit ("first biometric recognition device" 230, [0009], also referred to as "first biometric identification device" 230) for sensing a first biological feature and generating a first key signal according to the first biological feature ("to collect a first biometric image signal of a specific part of a vehicle user", [0009]), wherein the first key signal includes face features ("the above biometric identification information may be…face identification information", [0127]); a second sensing unit ("second biometric recognition device" 2303, [0017], also referred to as "second biometric identification device" 2303) for sensing a second biological feature and generating a second key signal according to the second biological feature ("…for collecting a second biometric image signal of a specific part of a vehicle user", [0017]); and a processing unit ("vehicle control system" 210; "control device" is also used and is implicitly interchangeable as they both are used for operation of the biometric recognition or identification device, [0009], [0126]) electrically connected to the first sensing unit ("vehicle control system 210…the biometric identification device…can exchange data and information through a data bus", [0125]) and the second sensing unit (does not explicitly state which biometric identification device is being referred to, therefore, it is implicit that the biometric identification device refers to any of the biometric identification device), wherein the processing unit ("vehicle control system" 210 or "control device") receives at least one of the first key signal ("control device is used to…obtain first biometric recognition information based on the first biometric image signal", [0009], implicit that the control device receives the first biometric image signal in order to obtain first biometric recognition information from the signal) and the second key signal ("the control device is further used…to obtain second biometric recognition information based on the second biometric image signal, [0017], implicit that the control device receives the second biometric image signal in order to obtain second biometric recognition information from the signal), and determines whether to unlock the automotive device according to the at least one of the first key signal and the second key signal ("the vehicle control system 210 includes a door lock execution module 203…to open the door of the car 20 based on recognition results of the biometrics of the vehicle user", [0137]-[0139], implicit that the recognition results can be applied to both the first and second key signal), wherein the first sensing unit sense the first biological feature ("first biometric recognition device…to collect a first biometric image signal of a specific part of a vehicle user", [0009]), wherein the second sensing unit sense the second biological feature ("second biometric recognition device for collecting a second biometric image signal of a specific part of a vehicle user", [0017]), wherein information security is enhanced through the first biological feature and the second biological feature ("the biometric identification information is sent to the control center; the control center confirms and authenticates the biometric identification information; and the opening of the car door and/or the start of the car are controlled based on the confirmation and authentication results of the control center", [0085], demonstration of multifactor authentication, a known method of enhancing information security).
However, Huang does not teach that the second biological feature is different from the first biological feature, wherein the second key signal includes fingerprint features; wherein the first sensing unit is periodically activated; wherein the second sensing unit is periodically activated; and wherein when the second key signal is obtained earlier than the first key, the second sensing unit performs recognition on the second key signal before the first sensing unit performing recognition on the first key signal.
Manotas, in the same field of endeavor, teaches that the second biological feature is different from the first biological feature, wherein the second key signal includes fingerprint features ("biometric sensor 212…senses an identifying biological characteristic of the user, such as a fingerprint…face, retina, a hand or DNA of the user", [0031], implicit that the identifying biological characteristic can be at least two different biological characteristics).
However, Manotas does not teach of wherein the first sensing unit is periodically activated; wherein the second sensing unit is periodically activated; and wherein when the second key signal is obtained earlier than the first key, the second sensing unit performs recognition on the second key signal before the first sensing unit performing recognition on the first key signal.
Van ‘265, in the same field of endeavor, teaches of wherein the first sensing unit is periodically activated and wherein the second sensing unit is periodically activated ("preparing to use the one or more biometric sensors (e.g., 1503) includes transitioning the sensors (e.g., 1503) from a low-power state (e.g., an unpowered state or sleep state) to a low-latency state (e.g., partial power state or a full power state, a pre-warmed state)", [0534], implicit that the sensors periodically go in and out of low-power state).
However, Van ‘265 does not teach of wherein when the second key signal is obtained earlier than the first key, the second sensing unit performs recognition on the second key signal before the first sensing unit performing recognition on the first key signal.
Chen, in the same field of endeavor, teaches of wherein when the second key signal is obtained earlier than the first key, the second sensing unit performs recognition on the second key signal before the first sensing unit performing recognition on the first key signal ("after the fingerprint recognition chip confirms that the fingerprint is correct. After the first fingerprint anti-theft system passes, the second facial recognition anti-theft system starts to work. The facial recognition module starts to recognize the face", [0008]).
Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have modified the first and second biometric recognition device of Huang with the biometric sensor of Manotas, periodic activation of Van ‘265, and the priority of recognizing key signals of Chen with reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make these modifications in order to enhance security of the automotive device via multifactor authentication (Huang, [0085]), reduce power usage and improves battery life of the device by enabling the user to use the device more quickly and efficiently (Van ‘265, [0318]), and to take advantage of the higher accuracy and uniqueness of fingerprint recognition then using facial recognition as a secondary verification step, since facial performance can be affected by environmental conditions (Chen, [0011]).
Regarding claim 2, modified Huang teaches of all limitations of claim 1 as stated above, additionally, Huang teaches of a display panel electrically connected to the processing unit ("vehicle control system 210…multi-function display…can exchange data and information through a data bus", [0125].
Regarding claim 8, modified Huang teaches of all limitations of claim 1 as stated above.
However, modified Huang does not teach that the first sensing unit includes a face recognition unit, and the second sensing unit includes a fingerprint recognition unit
Manotas, in the same field of endeavor, teaches that the first sensing unit includes a face recognition unit ("uses a facial recognition system as the primary biometric security system", [0003]), and the second sensing unit includes a fingerprint recognition unit ("in-car biometric sensor senses a fingerprint", [0039], “in-car biometric sensor” refers to the “second biometric sensor” of claim 20).
Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have modified to teachings of modified Huang with the face recognition system and fingerprint sensor of Manotas with reasonable expectations of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification such that there would be at least two different biometric identification (face recognition and fingerprint) for verifying the user.
Claims 3, 4, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang, Manotas, Van ‘265, and Chen, and further in view of Choi (KR20170096565A), hereinafter Choi.
Regarding claim 3, Huang, Manotas, Van ‘265, and Chen teach, of all limitations of claim 2 as stated above and additionally, that the first sensing unit is arranged outside the display panel ("the first biometric identification device 2302 is installed of the doorhandle 231A on the cab side of the above-mentioned automobile 20", [0293]).
However, Huang, Manotas, Van ‘265 and Chen do not teach that the second sensing unit is overlapped with the display panel.
Choi, in the same field of endeavor, teaches of a second sensing unit being overlapped with a display panel ("second fingerprint sensor (4603)…positioned under the display (4612)", [0207]).
Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have combined the elements of Huang, Manotas, Van ‘265, and Chen with the element of Choi to yield predictable results. One of ordinary skill in the art would have combined these elements such that the first biometric identification device is arranged outside the display and the second biometric identification device is positioned under the display to enhanced security by increasing the steps of authentication.
Regarding claim 4, Huang, Manotas, Van ‘265, and Chen teach of all limitations of claim 2 as stated above.
However, Huang, Manotas, Van ‘265, and Chen do not teach that the first sensing unit and the second sensing unit are overlapped with the display panel.
Choi, in the same field of endeavor, teaches of a first sensing unit ("The fingerprint sensor (4601) may be placed under the transparent plate (4001)…within the touch screen (4003)", [0198]) and a second sensing unit are overlapped with the display panel ("second fingerprint sensor (4603)…positioned under the display (4612)", [0207]).
Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have combined the elements of Huang, Manotas, Van ‘265, and Chen with the elements of Choi to yield predictable results. One of ordinary skill in the art would have combined these elements such that, in another embodiment, the first and second biometric recognition devices are placed under the display, thereby enhancing the interaction between the sensing units and improving user convenience by integrating both sensing units in a single location.
Regarding claim 13, Huang, Manotas, Van ‘265, and Chen teach, of all limitations of claim 2 as stated above and additionally, of the second sensing unit being disposed outside the display panel ("the second biometric recognition device 2303 is installed on the dashboard of the cab of the above-mentioned car 20", [0294]).
However, Huang, Manotas, Van ‘265, and Chen do not teach that the first sensing unit is overlapped with the display panel.
Choi, in the same field of endeavor, teaches of a first sensing unit being overlapped with the display panel ("The fingerprint sensor (4601) may be placed under the transparent plate (4001)…within the touch screen (4003)", [0198]).
Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have combined the elements of Huang, Manotas, Van ‘265, and Chen with the elements of Choi to yield predictable results. One of ordinary skill in the art would have combined these elements such that, in another embodiment, the first biometric recognition device placed under the display and second biometric recognition device placed outside the display to enhanced security by increasing the steps of authentication.
Claims 5 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang, Manotas, Van ‘265, and Chen, and further in view of Kim (US11025307), hereinafter Kim.
Regarding claim 5, Huang, Manotas, Van ‘265, and Chen teach of all limitations of claim 1 as stated above.
However, Huang, Manotas, Van ‘265, and Chen do not teach of a third sensing unit electrically connected to the processing unit.
Kim, in the same field of endeavor, teaches of a third sensing unit electrically connected to the processing unit ("The processor 140 may be electrically connected with…the antenna structure", Col. 5 lines 45-47, the “antenna structure” is the third antenna element, after the first and second antenna, mentioned).
Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have combined the elements of Huang, Manotas, Van ‘265, and Chen with the antenna structure of Kim to yield predictable results. One of ordinary skill in the art would have combined these elements such that the device of Huang, Manotas, Van ‘265, and Chen further comprises of an antenna structure electrically connected to the processing unit which would increase the transmission speed and reliability due to the lack of attenuation.
Regarding claim 14, Huang, Manotas, Van ‘265, and Chen teach of all limitations of claim 1 as stated above.
However, Huang, Manotas, Van ‘265, and Chen do not teach of a third sensing unit including an antenna unit.
Kim, in the same field of endeavor, teaches of a third sensing unit including an antenna unit ("antenna structure…includes an antenna array", Col. 1 lines 66-67).
Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have modified the teachings of Huang, Manotas, Van ‘265, and Chen with the antenna structure and antenna array of Kim with reasonable expectations of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to better receive and transmit necessary radio waves by increasing the signal strength.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang, Manotas, Van ‘265, Chen, and Kim, and further in view of Ryu et al. (KR20220016362A), hereinafter Ryu.
Regarding claim 6, Huang, Manotas, Van ‘265, Chen, and Kim teach of all limitations of claim 5 as stated above.
However, Huang, Manotas, Van ‘265, Chen, and Kim do not teach of a third sensing unit overlapped with the display panel.
Ryu, in the same field of endeavor, teaches of a third sensing unit overlapped with the display panel ("input sensor may be disposed below the display panel…and include…a third sensing element", [0004]).
Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have modified the antenna structure of Huang, Manotas, Van ‘265, Chen, and Kim with the third sensing element of Ryu with reasonable expectations of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification of having the antenna structure disposed below the display panel, since embedding a sensor below a display, thereby enhances the interaction between multiple sensing units and improves user convenience by integrating all sensing units in a single location.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang, Manotas, Van ‘265, Chen, and Kim, and further in view of Wieczorek et al. (US20200331486A1), hereinafter Wieczorek.
Regarding claim 7, Huang, Manotas, Van ‘265, Chen, and Kim teach of all limitations of claim 5 as stated above.
However, Huang, Manotas, Van ‘265, Chen, and Kim do not teach of a third sensing unit arranged outside the display panel.
Wieczorek, in the same field of endeavor, teaches of a third sensing unit arranged outside the display panel ("the third sensor may be positioned on the left side or the right side of an instrument cluster display", [0019]).
Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have substituted the third sensor of Wieczorek with the antenna structure of Huang, Manotas, Van ‘265, Chen, and Kim to obtain predictable results. One of ordinary skill in the art would have made this substitution so that, in another embodiment, the antenna structure can be positioned outside the display panel to improve signal quality by reducing the interference between other components.
Claims 15 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang, Manotas, Van ‘265, and Chen and further in view of Kuang et al. (CN110281767A), hereinafter Kuang.
Regarding claim 15, Huang, Manotas, Van ‘265, and Chen teach of all limitations of claim 1 as stated above, specifically, a first sensing unit ("first biometric recognition device" 230).
However, Huang, Manotas, Van ‘265, and Chen do not teach that the first sensing unit further includes a face recognition chip electrically connected to the face recognition unit.
Kuang, in the same field of endeavor, teaches of a face recognition chip electrically connected to the face recognition unit ("the face recognition chip is respectively connected to the camera…through wires or cables", [0029]).
Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have modified the first biometric recognition device of Huang, Manotas, Van ‘265, and Chen to further include the teachings of Kuang with reasonable expectations of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to enhance the performance of the first biometric recognition device by electrically connecting the face recognition chip to the camera.
Regarding claim 16, Huang, Manotas, Van ‘265, and Chen teach of all limitations of claim 1 as stated above.
However, Huang, Manotas, Van ‘265, and Chen do not teach of face recognition chip that generates the first key signal according to face features obtained by the face recognition unit.
Kuang, in the same field of endeavor, teaches of a face recognition chip ("face recognition chip") that generates the first key signal ("analyze the image to obtain face recognition information", [0029]) according to face features obtained by the face recognition unit ("received image results transmitted by the camera", [0029]).
Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have combined the elements of Huang, Manotas, Van ‘265, and Chen with the elements of Kuang to yield predictable results. One of ordinary skill in the art would have combined these elements such that the face recognition chip within the first biometric identification device generates face recognition information according to the image results transmitted by the camera.
Claims 17 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang, Manotas, Van ‘265, and Chen, and further in view of Jiang et al. (CN106203301A), hereinafter Jiang.
Regarding claim 17, Huang, Manotas, Van ‘265, and Chen teach of all limitations of claim 8 as stated above, specifically, a second sensing unit ("second biometric recognition device" 2303).
However, Huang, Manotas, Van ‘265, and Chen do not teach of a fingerprint recognition chip electrically connected to a fingerprint recognition unit.
Jiang, in the same field of endeavor, teaches of a fingerprint recognition chip electrically connected to a fingerprint recognition unit ("the fingerprint IC 160 is electrically connected to the fingerprint sensor 110", [0096]).
Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have modified the second biometric recognition device of Huang, Manotas, Van ‘265, and Chen to further include the teachings of Jiang with reasonable expectations of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to enhance the performance of the second biometric recognition device by electrically connecting the fingerprint IC to the fingerprint sensor.
Regarding claim 18, Huang, Manotas, Van ‘265, and Chen teach of all limitations of claim 8 as stated above.
However, Huang, Manotas, Van ‘265, and Chen do not teach of a fingerprint recognition chip that generates the second key signal according to fingerprint features obtained by the fingerprint recognition unit.
Jiang, in the same field of endeavor, teaches of a fingerprint recognition chip that generates the second key signal according to fingerprint features obtained by the fingerprint recognition unit ("the fingerprint IC 160 is used to receive fingerprint signals…and send the fingerprint signals…to the processing chip 130", [0096]).
Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have combined the elements of Huang, Manotas, Van ‘265, and Chen with the elements of Jiang to yield predictable results. One of ordinary skill in the art would have combined these elements such that the fingerprint IC within the second biometric identification device generates a second key signal (fingerprint signal) according to the image results transmitted by the camera.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang, Manotas, Van ‘265, and Chen in view of Ogawa (JP2004276781A) and further in view of Kim, M.J. (US8885896), hereinafter Ogawa and Kim, M.J.
Regarding claim 9, Huang, Manotas, Van ‘265, and Chen teach, of all limitations of claim 1 as stated above and additionally, of processing unit further includes a communication interface module, a processing component and an access component ("the vehicle control system 210 is mainly composed of a CPU 2101, a storage device 2102, and a communication interface 2103", [0131]) and the processing unit determines whether to unlock the automotive device according to the at least one of the first key signal and the second key signal ("the vehicle control system 210 includes a door lock execution module 203…to open the door of the car 20 based on recognition results of the biometrics of the vehicle user", [0137]-[0139], implicit that the recognition results can be applied to both the first and second key signal).
However, Huang, Manotas, Van ‘265, and Chen do not teach that the access component stores a first keyhole information and a second keyhole information, the communication interface module receives at least one of the first key signal generated by the first sensing unit and the second key signal generated by the second sensing unit, and the processing component performs comparison to determine whether the first key signal is the same as the first keyhole information or whether the second key signal is the same as the second keyhole information to determine whether to unlock the automotive device.
Kim, M.J., in the same field of endeavor, teaches of communication interface module ("a meter", Col. 2, line 39; does not explicitly state a communication interface however the meter performs the same actions of receiving signals), receives at least one of the first key signal (“…taking a first electrical measurement”, Col. 2, line 40) generated by the first sensing unit (“a first side having a first fingerprint scanning device”, Col 2, lines 29-30) and the second key signal (“…taking a second electrical measurement”, Col. 2, line 42) generated by the second sensing unit (“a second side having a second fingerprint scanning device”, Col 2, lines 30-31).
Furthermore, Kim, M.J. does not teach of a processing component to perform comparison to determine whether the first key signal is the same as the first keyhole information or whether the second key signal is the same as the second keyhole information to determine whether to unlock the automotive device.
Ogawa, in the same field of endeavor, teaches of a processing component that performs comparison ("microcomputer 2 compares the fingerprint data, [0024]) to determine whether the first key signal ("detected first biometric data", [0010]) is the same as the first keyhole information ("stored first biometric data", [0010]) or whether the second key signal ("detected second biometric data", [0010]) is the same as the second keyhole information ("stored second biometric data", [0010]) to determine whether or not to do ([0024]).
Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have combined the elements of Huang; Manotas; Van ‘265; Chen; Kim, M.J.; and Ogawa to yield predictable results. One of ordinary skill in the art would have combined the processing component, communication interface, and access component to create a comprehensive processing unit that is responsible for gathering, storing, and comparing biometric data for authentication for unlocking an automotive device.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang, Manotas, Van ‘265, Chen, Ogawa, and Kim, M.J., and further in view of Li et al. (CN109817162A), hereinafter Li.
Regarding claim 10, Huang, Manotas, Van ‘265, Chen, Ogawa, and Kim, M.J. teach of all limitations of claim 9 as stated above, specifically, that the processing component performs comparison ("microcomputer 2 compares the fingerprint data, [0024]) to determine whether the first key signal ("detected first biometric data", [0010]) is the same as the first keyhole information ("stored first biometric data", [0010]) or whether the second key signal ("detected second biometric data", [0010]) is the same as the second keyhole information ("stored second biometric data", [0010]) to determine whether or not to do ([0024]).
However, Huang, Manotas, Van ‘265, Chen, Ogawa, and Kim, M.J. do not teach of a display panel and a driving chip, wherein, when the first key signal is the same as the first keyhole information or the second key signal is the same as the second keyhole information, the processing unit sends a message to the driving, so that the driving chip drives the display panel.
Li, in the same field of endeavor, teaches of a display panel ("terminal screen") and a driving chip ("driver chip"), wherein, the processing unit sends a message to the driving chip ("the processor sends a second enable signal (EN signal) to the driver chip", [0050]), so that the driving chip drives the display panel ("the driver chip can normally drive the terminal screen for display", [0050]).
Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have modified the teachings of Huang, Manotas, Van ‘265, Chen, Ogawa, and Kim, M.J. with the teachings of Li with reasonable expectations of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification since a display panel controlled by a driving chip that activates when there is successful biometric authentication provides the user with visual confirmation of said successful biometric authentication.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang; Manotas; Van ‘265; Chen; Ogawa; Kim, M.J.; and Li, and further in view of Van et al. (AU2020203899A1), hereinafter Van ‘899.
Regarding claim 11, Huang; Manotas; Van ‘265; Chen; Ogawa; Kim, M.J.; and Li teach of all limitations of claim 10 as stated above.
However, Huang; Manotas; Van ‘265; Chen; Ogawa; Kim, M.J.; and Li do not teach of wherein an unlocking symbol is displayed, after the driving chip drives the display panel.
Van ‘899, in the same field of endeavor, teaches of wherein an unlocking symbol is displayed ("displays an animation in which the locked state 1912 indicator transitions into an unlocked state indicator 1922", [648]), after ("once the device has finished processing the biometric data, the one or more rings overlaid with one another to demonstrate that the processing is complete", [0054], in which the "one or more rings" are an exemplary animation on the display in one or more embodiments) the driving chip drives the display panel ("One or more programs configured to be executed by one or more processors…The one or more programs include instructions for: displaying…", [7]; "CPU 120…are, optionally, implemented on a single chip", [172]).
Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have modified the teachings of Huang; Manotas; Van ‘265; Chen; Ogawa; Kim, M.J.; and Li with the unlocking symbol of Van ‘899 to yield predictable results. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification such that displaying an unlocking symbol would make the successful state of biometric authentication obvious to the user
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang, Manotas, Van ‘265, Chen, Ogawa, and Kim, M.J., and further in view of Ye et al. (CN112257634A), hereinafter Ye.
Regarding claim 19, Huang, Manotas, Van ‘265, Chen, Ogawa, and Kim, M.J. teach of all limitations of claim 9 as stated above.
However, Huang, Manotas, Van ‘265, Chen, Ogawa, and Kim, M.J. do not teach of wherein the communication interface module converts the first key signal and the second key signal into a signal format applicable to the processing component.
Ye, in the same field of endeavor, teaches of a communication interface module that converts the first key signal and the second key signal into a signal format applicable to the processing component ("the analog-to-digital converter 131 of the processing circuit 130 can convert the analog first sensing signal and the analog second sensing signal into a first digital signal and a second digital signal, respectively, and then output the first digital signal and the second digital signal to the microcontroller 132", [0047]).
Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have combined the elements of Huang, Manotas, Van ‘265, Chen, Ogawa, and Kim, M.J. with the analog-to-digital converter of Ye to yield predictable results. One of ordinary skill in the art would have combined these elements since the conversion from analog biometric signals from the sensor into a digital format allows for the processing component to perform biometric authentication.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang, Manotas, Van ‘265, Chen, Ogawa, and Kim, M.J., and further in view of Carper (US20140232526A1), hereinafter Carper.
Regarding claim 20, Huang, Manotas, Van ‘265, Chen, Ogawa, and Kim, M.J. teaches of all limitations of claim 9 as stated above.
However, Huang, Manotas, Van ‘265, Chen, Ogawa, and Kim, M.J. do not teach that the first keyhole information includes the first biological feature preset through the processing component, and the second keyhole information includes the second biological feature preset through the processing component
Carper, in the same field of endeavor, teaches that the first keyhole information ("stored template", [0007]) includes the first biological feature ("biometric information", [0007]) preset through the processing component ("The processor is configured to compare the captured biometric information with stored template information", [0012]), and the second keyhole information ("plurality of stored templates", [0007]) includes the second biological feature preset through the processing component (since there can be a plurality of stored templates it is implicit that there is a second stored template that includes a second biometric information and furthermore, the processor would compare both the first and second captured biometric information with the stored template information).
Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have combined the elements of Huang, Manotas, Van ‘265, Chen, Ogawa, and Kim, M.J. with the elements of Carper to yield predictable results. One of ordinary skill in the art would have combined these elements since having multiple keyholes with preset biological features provides the processing components with a baseline of biometric data to compare with in order to perform authentication.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang, Manotas, Van ‘265, and Chen, and further in view of Hung et al. (US2016063299A1), hereinafter Hung.
Regarding claim 12, Huang, Manotas, Van ‘265, and Chen teach of all limitations of claim 1 as stated above.
However, Huang, Manotas, Van ‘265, and Chen do not teach of a circuit board arranged thereon the processing unit.
Hung, in the same field of endeavor, teaches of a circuit board arranged thereon a processing unit ("a circuit board 30 may be provided to have…the image processing unit 13 disposed thereon", [0021]).
Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have modified the processing unit of Huang, Manotas, Van ‘265, and Chen with the circuit board arranged thereon a processing unit of Hung with reasonable expectations of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have motivated to make this modification since having a processing unit embedded with a circuit board improves latency and simplifies the model by having fewer individual components.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ABIGAIL LEE ESPINOZA whose telephone number is (571)272-4889. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00 am - 5:00 pm 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, Adam Mott can be reached at (571) 270-5376. 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.
ABIGAIL LEE ESPINOZA
Examiner
Art Unit 3657
/ADAM R MOTT/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3657