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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I (claims 1-7, 14-15) in the reply filed on 01/05/2026 is acknowledged.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on the application JP 2022-152804 filed 09/26/2022. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the application as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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 following title is suggested: IMAGE PROCESSING APPARATUS FOR DETERMINING IDENTICAL OBJECTS IN DIFFERENT MODAL TYPE IMAGES.
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.
Claims 2-3 are 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 2 recites the limitation "the second modal" in lines 6-7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Examiner suggests amending to recite “the second modal type”.
Claim 3 is dependent on claim 2 and is thus similarly rejected.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 7, 14-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ye (US 20180089534 A1) in view of Short (US 20170132458 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Ye discloses an image processing apparatus comprising: at least one processor; and at least one memory coupled to the at least one processor, the memory storing instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to act as (Fig. 2A, [0040] at least one processor unit which is coupled to an internal storage module, which may be formed from non-volatile semiconductor ROM and RAM; [0047] software stored in the ROM can be loaded into and executed by the processor):
an extraction unit configured to extract a first feature from first data of a first modal type, the first data including information of a first object that is registered, and extract a second feature from second data of a second modal type that is different from the first modal type, the second data including information of a second object for matching (Fig. 8; [0084] a query image and a database image are received, the query image being captured using the first sensor modality and the database image being captured using the second sensor modality; [0086] One set of feature vectors is determined from the pre-processed query face image while the other set of feature vectors is determined from the pre-processed database face image; [0059] the first sensor modality is for example a thermal infrared camera; [0060] the second sensor modality is for example a visible camera; [0036] the features representing regions or structures of the image region), and
a determination unit configured to determine whether or not the first object and the second object are identical, based on the first feature and the second feature (Fig. 8, [0090] the steps effectively operate to match the query image to the database image using the determined scores, the matching being based on scores derived from the vectors (see also [0088]); [0086] the vectors being based on the features).
Ye fails to disclose wherein the extraction unit is trained to extract the first feature and the second feature to be similar when the first object and the second object are identical.
Short, in a related field from the same field of endeavor of face matching across imaging modalities via feature extraction (Abstract), discloses wherein the extraction unit is trained to extract the first feature and the second feature to be similar when the first object and the second object are identical ([0033] the feature extraction module performs edge and feature detection on the image data to generate feature vectors; [0035] composite feature vectors are then matched against feature vectors from database to authenticate the user, the matching results comprising one or more cross-modal images that have been successfully matched with the composite feature vectors from the enrolled templates; see also [0023]-[0024] wherein the feature vectors enhance the matching results (i.e. the features are extracted such that they will be match the specified database features when the face matches the database image face)).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Short with Ye wherein the extraction unit is trained to extract the first feature and the second feature to be similar when the first object and the second object are identical, as disclosed by Short, as part of an image processing apparatus for determining whether a first object and a second object are identical, as disclosed by Ye, for the purpose of increased accuracy and reliability of cross-modal facial identification (See Short: [0003]-[0005]).
Regarding claim 2, Ye in view of Short disclose the image processing apparatus according to claim 1 as applied above. Ye further discloses a selection unit configured to select parameters of the extraction unit respectively corresponding to the first modal type and the second modal type ([0059] a codebook is built for the first sensor modality using the received training face images (see also Fig. 3A); [0060] a codebook is built for the second sensor modality using the received training face images (see also Fig. 3B)), wherein
the extraction unit extracts the first feature from the first data, based on the parameter corresponding to the first modal type, and extracts the second feature from the second data, based on the parameter corresponding to the second modal ([0095]-[0096] the codebooks for the first and second sensor modalities and used to generate dual vector representation of the extracted features (see also Fig. 9C, 11B)), and
the determination unit determines that the first object and the second object are identical when a similarity between the first feature and the second feature is equal to or less than a threshold value ([0090] the scores are ranked by similarity to determine a match between the query and database images (see also [0058]; i.e. when the difference in similarity scores is less than the difference between other candidate images, there is a match)).
Regarding claim 3, Ye in view of Short discloses the image processing apparatus of claim 2 as applied above. Ye further discloses wherein the determination unit determines that the first object and the second object are not identical when the similarity is not equal to or less than the threshold value ([0090] the scores are ranked by similarity to determine a match between the query and database images (see also [0058]; i.e. when the difference in similarity scores is not less than the difference between other candidate images, there is not a match)).
Regarding claim 7, Ye in view of Short discloses the image processing apparatus according to claim 1 as applied above. Ye further discloses wherein the first data and the second data include at least one of a two-dimensional RGB image, an image having three-dimensional shape information, a stereo image, a depth image, and a monochrome image ([0002] a visible image often has three colour channels (i.e. RGB image, see also [0035]); [0003] a range imaging camera, which produces depth information on the scene being imaged; [0003] a time-of-flight camera is a type of range imaging camera and produces depth information; see also [0032]), and
the first object and the second object are faces of persons ([0083] matching a query face image captured by the first sensor modality to database face images captured by the second sensor modality).
Regarding claim 14, Ye in view of Short discloses everything claimed as applied above (see rejection of claim 1).
Regarding claim 15, Ye in view of Short discloses everything claimed as applied above (see rejection of claim 1).
Claim(s) 4-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ye (US 20180089534 A1) in view of Short (US 20170132458 A1) in further view of Kwak (US 20210158509 A1).
Regarding claim 4, Ye in view of Short discloses the image processing apparatus according to claim 1 as applied above. Ye fails to disclose a validity determination unit configured to determine whether or not the second data is valid when the second data includes predetermined information, wherein the validity determination unit determines that the second data is valid when a likelihood of the second object based on the second feature and correct answer data exceeds a threshold value.
Kwak, in a related system from the same field of endeavor of user authentication including liveness detection based on images of two different modalities ([0002], [0005]-[0006]), discloses a validity determination unit configured to determine whether or not the second data is valid when the second data includes predetermined information (Fig. 3, [0065] the IR image the depth image may be acquired by image sensors configured to respectively sense an IR value and a depth value, or extracted based on an IR value sensed through a single image sensor; [0078] the test apparatus may determine a first liveness (i.e. validity) score using a neural network-based first liveness test model), wherein the validity determination unit determines that the second data is valid when a likelihood of the second object based on the second feature and correct answer data exceeds a threshold value ([0079] the test apparatus may determine the object to be a genuine object if a result value of the combination of the first liveness score and the second liveness score is greater than a threshold value).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Kwak with Ye in view of Short and determine whether or not the second data is value when the second data includes predetermined information, wherein the validity determination unit determines that the second data is valid when a likelihood of the second object based on the second feature and correct answer data exceeds a threshold value, as disclosed by Kwak, as part of an image processing apparatus for determining whether a first object and a second object are identical, as disclosed by Ye in view of Short, for the purpose of preventing false acceptance in biometric authentication contexts and improving accuracy of the authentication (see Kwak: [0062]-[0063]).
Regarding claim 5, Ye in view of Short and Kwak discloses the image processing apparatus according to claim 4 as applied above. Ye fails to disclose wherein the validity determination unit determines that the second data is not valid when the likelihood does not exceed a threshold value.
Kwak, in a related system from the same field of endeavor of user authentication including liveness detection based on images of two different modalities ([0002], [0005]-[0006]), discloses wherein the validity determination unit determines that the second data is not valid when the likelihood does not exceed a threshold value ([0079] the test apparatus may determine the object to be a fake object if the result value of the combination of liveness scores is less than or equal to the threshold value).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Kwak with Ye in view of Short wherein the validity determination unit determines that the second data is not valid when the likelihood does not exceed a threshold value, as disclosed by Kwak, as part of an image processing apparatus for determining whether a first object and a second object are identical, as disclosed by Ye in view of Short, for the purpose of preventing false acceptance in biometric authentication contexts and improving accuracy of the authentication (see Kwak: [0062]-[0063]).
Regarding claim 6, Ye in view of Short and Kwak discloses the image processing apparatus according to claim 4 as applied above. Ye fails to disclose wherein the predetermined information is at least one of three-dimensional shape information, temperature information, and motion information of the second object.
Kwak, in a related system from the same field of endeavor of user authentication including liveness detection based on images of two different modalities ([0002], [0005]-[0006]), discloses wherein the predetermined information is at least one of three-dimensional shape information, temperature information, and motion information of the second object ([0065] the test apparatus may acquire an IR image including an object and a depth image including the object; [0094] the weight for determining the final liveness score may be based on a pose of the face, a position of the face region, etc.).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Kwak with Ye in view of Short wherein the predetermined information is at least one of three-dimensional shape information, temperature information, and motion information of the second object, as disclosed by Kwak, as part of an image processing apparatus for determining whether a first object and a second object are identical, as disclosed by Ye in view of Short, for the purpose of preventing false acceptance in biometric authentication contexts and improving accuracy of the authentication (see Kwak: [0062]-[0063]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Li (US 20220284228 A1) discloses acquiring RGB, IR, and depth video data and determining whether the content corresponds across the data types and authenticating the content in response.
Boic (US 20220157078 A1) discloses matching modalities of face images by comparing an acquired biometric signature with a pre-stored signature and comparing based on a proximity threshold.
Wolf (US 20210264183 A1) discloses receiving a color image and an IR image taken simultaneously and determining depth values of facial landmarks to compare to a difference threshold to authenticate the individual, further including liveness/anti-spoofing detection.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CAROLINE DEPALMA whose telephone number is (571)270-0769. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs 9:00am-4pm Eastern Time.
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, Andrew Moyer can be reached at 571-272-9523. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of 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.
/CAROLINE E. DEPALMA/Examiner, Art Unit 2675
/SJ Park/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2675
Prosecution Insights