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 .
Response to Remarks
The Office Action has been made issued in response to amendment filed June 10, 2026. Claims 1, 3-19 and 21 are pending. Applicant’s arguments have been carefully and respectfully considered in light of the instant amendment, and are not persuasive. Accordingly, this action has been made FINAL.
Drawing Objections
Applicant has amended some of the drawings as suggested by the Examiner. Therefore, the objection of withdrawn from Figures 1-9; however, the objection has not been withdrawn from Figures 10-11.
Claim Rejections – 35 USC section § 101
Applicant has cancelled 20; therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn.
Claim Rejections – 35 USC section § 102/103
On pages 9-10 of the response, Applicant argued that the cited references failed to disclose “wherein the baseline image is captured when the internal region of the peripheral device is free of foreign objects; and determining, by the processor, that a foreign object is present in the peripheral device when more than a predetermined number of the plurality of difference values exceed a first predetermined threshold in at least one region of interest associated with the internal region, or determining, by the processor, that a foreign object is not present in the peripheral device when less than the predetermined number of the plurality of difference values exceed the first predetermined threshold in the at least one region of interest associated with the internal region and replacing the baseline image with the first image to provide an updated baseline image”. However, Applicant's arguments with respect to the limitation “wherein the baseline image is captured when the internal region of the peripheral device is free of foreign objects; and determining, by the processor, that a foreign object is present in the peripheral device when more than a predetermined number of the plurality of difference values exceed a first predetermined threshold in at least one region of interest associated with the internal region, or determining, by the processor, that a foreign object is not present in the peripheral device when less than the predetermined number of the plurality of difference values exceed the first predetermined threshold in the at least one region of interest associated with the internal region and replacing the baseline image with the first image to provide an updated baseline image” have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
Drawings
Figures 10-11 are objected to as depicting a block diagram without “readily identifiable” descriptors of each block, as required by 37 CFR 1.84(n). Rule 84(n) requires “labeled representations” of graphical symbols, such as blocks; and any that are “not universally recognized may be used, subject to approval by the Office, if they are not likely to be confused with existing conventional symbols, and if they are readily identifiable.” For e.g. 1010 in the case of figure Fig 10, the blocks are not readily identifiable per se and therefore require the insertion of text that identifies the function of that block. That is, each vacant block should be provided with a corresponding label identifying its function or purpose.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 1 and 3-19 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 1 recites “determining, by the processor, that a foreign object is not present in the peripheral device when less than the predetermined number of the plurality of difference values exceed the first predetermined threshold in the at least one region of interest associated with the internal region and replacing the baseline image with the first image to provide an updated baseline image”; however, it’s unclear whether the last portion of “replacing the baseline image with the first image to provide an updated baseline image” is a part of the second condition or take place whether the first or second condition is performed. The Examiner cannot ascertained with certainty the bounds of the claim; therefore, rendering the claim indefinite.
Claims 3-19 are being rejected as incorporating the deficiencies of the claim upon which each respective claim depends.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1, 6, 8, 12-14 and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takeda et al (Pub No.: 20240054300) in view of Zeng et al (NPL titled: Reference-Based Defect Detection Network) in view of BRAISAZ et al (Pub No.: US 20230326176).
Regarding independent claim 1, Takeda teaches a computer-implemented method for determining whether a foreign object is present in a peripheral device of a transaction terminal (foreign matter detection device, a card reader, a foreign matter detection method and a recording medium that records a foreign matter detection program – see [p][00002]), comprising the steps of: capturing, by an imaging device (84a – see Fig 3) of a peripheral device (see Fig 5) of a transaction terminal (100, card reader – see Fig 1 and [p][0026]), a first image (the host apparatus 10 acquires a captured image obtained from the imaging device 84 by the imaging control in the step S12 as a first captured image (step S13) – see [p][0059]) of an internal region of the peripheral device (the imaging control so that the imaging device 84 images the space 90 at a timing that lights are irradiated from the light sources 85 and 86 to the space 90 by the light emitting control – see [p][0058]); calculating, by a processor (control part, CPU – see [p][0045] and Fig 5) of the transaction terminal, a difference between first pixel values associated with pixels of said first image and second pixel values (a second captured image (step S18) – see [p][0064]) associated with corresponding pixels of a baseline image of the internal region (the host apparatus 10 determines to be “matching” when a difference between a pixel value of the first captured image and a pixel value of the second captured image among respective pixels of the particular region is less than a threshold and, in a case that a difference between a pixel value of the first captured image and a pixel value of the second captured image – see [p][0069]), thereby obtaining a plurality of difference values (see [p][0069]);
determine by a processor that a foreign object is present in the peripheral device when more than a predetermined number of the plurality of difference values exceed a first predetermined threshold in at least one region of interest associated with the internal region (in a case that a matching rate of each of the cells is calculated, the host apparatus 10 may determine whether a foreign matter exists in the space 90 or not based on the number of the cells whose matching rate is not less than the threshold, distribution (adjacent number) of the cells whose matching rate is not less than the threshold, or the like - see [p][0072]), or determining, by the processor, that a foreign object is not present in the peripheral device when less than the predetermined number of the plurality of difference values exceed the first predetermined threshold in the at least one region of interest associated with the internal region ([f]or example, the host apparatus 10 determines that no foreign matter exists in the space 90 when the matching rate is not less than a predetermined value – see [p][0071]).
Takeda teaches wherein the baseline image is captured when the internal region of the peripheral device (the host apparatus 10 causes the light sources 85 and 86 to emit light at an imaging time by the imaging device 84 provided in the inside of the card reader 100 and thus, even when an inside of the card reader 100 is dark, a clear captured image can be acquired and a foreign matter can be detected with a high degree of accuracy - see [p][0081]); however, fails to explicitly teach the peripheral device is free of foreign objects.
Zeng explicitly teaches the peripheral device is free of foreign objects (defect-free samples - see section I, [p][006]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to combine the teachings of Takeda of having a computer-implemented method for determining whether a foreign object is present in a peripheral device of a transaction terminal, comprising the steps of: capturing, by an imaging device of a peripheral device of a transaction termina, with the teachings of Zeng having the peripheral device is free of foreign objects.
Wherein having Takeda the peripheral device is free of foreign objects.
The motivation behind the modification would have been to detection foreign object using on image subtraction since both Takeda and Zeng relate to image differencing wherein Takeda detecting foreign matters in various shapes in an inside of the card reader with a high degree of accuracy, while Zeng to improve the defect detector and boost the detection performance (Please see Takeda (Pub No.: 20240054300 A1), Paragraph [0010], and Zeng et al (NPL titled: Reference-Based Defect Detection Network), see section IV, [p][001]).
Note the combination above; Takeda in view of Zeng does not explicitly teach replacing the baseline image with the first image to provide an updated baseline image.
BRAISAZ explicitly teaches replacing the baseline image with the first image to provide an updated baseline image (replace a reference image by another reference image calculated so as to reduce the extent of at least one artefact or even eliminate at least one artefact or to add a reference image to the reference images already taken so as to reduce the weight of the artefacts. This makes for a more precise calculation of the quantities characteristics of the sample – see [p][0059]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to combine the teachings of Takeda of having a computer-implemented method for determining whether a foreign object is present in a peripheral device of a transaction terminal, comprising the steps of: capturing, by an imaging device of a peripheral device of a transaction termina, with the teachings of BRAISAZ having replacing the baseline image with the first image to provide an updated baseline image.
Wherein having Takeda replacing the baseline image with the first image to provide an updated baseline image.
The motivation behind the modification would have been to detection foreign object using on image subtraction since both Takeda and BRAISAZ relate to image differencing wherein Takeda detecting foreign matters in various shapes in an inside of the card reader with a high degree of accuracy, while BRAISAZ form a better quality working image by reducing the number of artefacts and/or the extent of the artefacts (see [p][0089]). (Please see Takeda (Pub No.: 20240054300 A1), [p][0010], and BRAISAZ et al (Pub No.: 20230326176), [p][0089]).
Regarding claim 6, Takeda in view of Zeng and BRAISAZ teach the method as claimed in claim 1, Takeda teaches further comprising: generating, by the processor, a difference image comprising pixels each having a pixel value equal to one of the plurality of difference values ([f]or example, the host apparatus 10 determines to be “matching” when a difference between a pixel value of the first captured image and a pixel value of the second captured image among respective pixels of the particular region is less than a threshold and, in a case that a difference between a pixel value of the first captured image and a pixel value of the second captured image is equal to or more than the threshold, the host apparatus 10 determines to be “not matching” – see [p][0069]).
Regarding claim 8, Takeda in view of Zeng and BRAISAZ teach the method as claimed in claim 1, Takeda teaches further comprising: capturing, by the imaging device, said first image after a transaction has been conducted on the transaction terminal (captured images before a card taking-in operation and after a card eject operation are compared with each other and thus, influence by factors (change over time and the like) except installation of a magnetic data swindle member by utilizing a card taking-in operation is reduced and the magnetic data swindle member can be detected with a high degree of accuracy – see [p][0098]).
Regarding claim 12, Takeda in view of Zeng and BRAISAZ teach the method as claimed in claim 1, Takeda teaches further comprising: responsive to determining that the foreign object is present, issuing, by the processor, an alert ([f]urther, in the step S23, the host apparatus 10 may output alert information indicating detection of the foreign matter in the space 90 and a type of the foreign matter having been determined to a manager of the host apparatus 10 – see [p][0075]).
Regarding claim 13, Takeda in view of Zeng and BRAISAZ teach the method as claimed in claim 12, Takeda teaches further comprising: responsive to issuing the alert ([f]urther, in the step S23, the host apparatus 10 may output alert information indicating detection of the foreign matter in the space 90 – see [p][0075]), temporarily placing the transaction terminal into an inactive state (unable to insert card – see [p][0074]).
Regarding claim 14, Takeda in view of Zeng and BRAISAZ teach the method as claimed in claim 13, Takeda teaches further comprising: after placing the transaction terminal into the inactive state, capturing, by the imaging device, at least one further image of the internal region over a preset time period (see [0074]]); and when the foreign object is determined as being present in each of said at least one further image, placing the transaction terminal into an out of service state (the host apparatus 10 performs control that a magnetic card 2 is unable to be inserted into the card reader 100. This is control that, for example, even if card insertion is detected by the insertion detection sensor 55, the shutter of the card insertion part 50 is not opened – see [p][0074]).
Regarding claim 16, Takeda in view of Zeng and BRAISAZ teach the method as claimed in claim 1, Takeda teaches further comprising: when capturing the first image, illuminating the internal region of the peripheral device with at least one light source (the imaging device 84 images the space 90 at a timing that lights are irradiated from the light sources 85 and 86 to the space 90 by the light emitting control – see [p][0058]), optionally whereby the light source is integrated within the imaging device.
Regarding claim 17, Takeda in view of Zeng and BRAISAZ teach the method as claimed in claim 1, Takeda teaches whereby each region of interest is a predefined region of the internal region where components of the peripheral device remain static in all images captured by the imaging device.
` Regarding claim 18, Takeda in view of Zeng and BRAISAZ teach the method as claimed in claim 1, Takeda teaches whereby the peripheral device is a card reader and the foreign object is a card skimming device (for example, for the purpose of skimming – see [p][0033]).
Regarding independent claim 19, Takeda teaches a transaction terminal (foreign matter detection device, a card reader, a foreign matter detection method and a recording medium that records a foreign matter detection program – see [p][0002]), comprising: at least one peripheral device (100, card reader – see Fig 1 and [p][0026]) comprising an imaging device (84a – see Fig 3) configured to capture images of an internal region of the peripheral device (the imaging control so that the imaging device 84 images the space 90 at a timing that lights are irradiated from the light sources 85 and 86 to the space 90 by the light emitting control – see [p][0058]); and at least one processor (control part, CPU – see [p][0045] and Fig 5) comprised within or communicatively (see Fig 5) coupled to the peripheral device (see Fig 5), the processor configured to: calculating, by a processor (control part, CPU – see [p][0045] and Fig 5) of the transaction terminal, a difference between first pixel values associated with pixels of said first image and second pixel values (a second captured image (step S18) – see [p][0064]) associated with corresponding pixels of a baseline image of the internal region (the host apparatus 10 determines to be “matching” when a difference between a pixel value of the first captured image and a pixel value of the second captured image among respective pixels of the particular region is less than a threshold and, in a case that a difference between a pixel value of the first captured image and a pixel value of the second captured image – see [p][0069]), thereby obtaining a plurality of difference values (see [p][0069]); determine by a processor that a foreign object is present in the peripheral device when more than a predetermined number of the plurality of difference values exceed a first predetermined threshold in at least one region of interest associated with the internal region (in a case that a matching rate of each of the cells is calculated, the host apparatus 10 may determine whether a foreign matter exists in the space 90 or not based on the number of the cells whose matching rate is not less than the threshold, distribution (adjacent number) of the cells whose matching rate is not less than the threshold, or the like - see [p][0072]), or determining, by the processor, that a foreign object is not present in the peripheral device when less than the predetermined number of the plurality of difference values exceed the first predetermined threshold in the at least one region of interest associated with the internal region ([f]or example, the host apparatus 10 determines that no foreign matter exists in the space 90 when the matching rate is not less than a predetermined value – see [p][0071]).
Takeda teaches wherein the baseline image is captured when the internal region of the peripheral device (the host apparatus 10 causes the light sources 85 and 86 to emit light at an imaging time by the imaging device 84 provided in the inside of the card reader 100 and thus, even when an inside of the card reader 100 is dark, a clear captured image can be acquired and a foreign matter can be detected with a high degree of accuracy - see [p][0081]); however, fails to explicitly teach the peripheral device is free of foreign objects.
Zeng explicitly teaches the peripheral device is free of foreign objects (defect-free samples - see section I, [p][006]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to combine the teachings of Takeda of having a computer-implemented method for determining whether a foreign object is present in a peripheral device of a transaction terminal, comprising the steps of: capturing, by an imaging device of a peripheral device of a transaction termina, with the teachings of Zeng having the peripheral device is free of foreign objects.
Wherein having Takeda the peripheral device is free of foreign objects.
The motivation behind the modification would have been to detection foreign object using on image subtraction since both Takeda and Zeng relate to image differencing wherein Takeda detecting foreign matters in various shapes in an inside of the card reader with a high degree of accuracy, while Zeng to improve the defect detector and boost the detection performance (Please see Takeda (Pub No.: 20240054300 A1), Paragraph [0010], and Zeng et al (NPL titled: Reference-Based Defect Detection Network), see section IV, [p][001]).
Note the combination above; Takeda in view of Zeng does not explicitly teach replacing the baseline image with the first image to provide an updated baseline image.
BRAISAZ explicitly teaches replacing the baseline image with the first image to provide an updated baseline image (replace a reference image by another reference image calculated so as to reduce the extent of at least one artefact or even eliminate at least one artefact or to add a reference image to the reference images already taken so as to reduce the weight of the artefacts. This makes for a more precise calculation of the quantities characteristics of the sample – see [p][0059]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to combine the teachings of Takeda of having a computer-implemented method for determining whether a foreign object is present in a peripheral device of a transaction terminal, comprising the steps of: capturing, by an imaging device of a peripheral device of a transaction termina, with the teachings of BRAISAZ having replacing the baseline image with the first image to provide an updated baseline image.
Wherein having Takeda replacing the baseline image with the first image to provide an updated baseline image.
The motivation behind the modification would have been to detection foreign object using on image subtraction since both Takeda and BRAISAZ relate to image differencing wherein Takeda detecting foreign matters in various shapes in an inside of the card reader with a high degree of accuracy, while BRAISAZ form a better quality working image by reducing the number of artefacts and/or the extent of the artefacts (see [p][0089]). (Please see Takeda (Pub No.: 20240054300 A1), [p][0010], and BRAISAZ et al (Pub No.: 20230326176), [p][0089]).
Claims 5 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
Takeda et al (Pub No.: 20240054300) in view of Zeng et al (NPL titled: Reference-Based Defect Detection Network) in view of BRAISAZ et al (Pub No.: US 20230326176) as applied to claim 5 further in view of Connell (US Patent No.: 7970229).
Regarding claim 5, Takeda in view of Zeng and BRAISAZ teach the method as claimed in claim 1, Takeda teaches further comprising: all pixel values associated with the pixels of the first image from all corresponding pixel values associated with the pixels of the baseline image (the host apparatus 10 acquires a captured image obtained from the imaging device 84 by the imaging control in the step S12 as a first captured image (step S13). The first captured image which is acquired in the step S13 is an example of the first captured image which is obtained by imaging of the imaging device 84 at a first timing before a card taking-in operation of the card reader 100 is performed – see [p][0059]), or vice versa; Takeda in view of Zeng and BRAISAZ do not explicitly teach calculating said difference to obtain the plurality of difference values by subtracting by the processor.
Connell explicitly teaches calculating said difference to obtain the plurality of difference values by subtracting by the processor ([a]n input video stream is passed through one or more switchable, reconfigurable image correction units before being sent on to a background subtraction module or another visual – see col 4, lines 34-38).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to combine the teachings of Takeda in view of Zeng and BRAISAZ of having a computer-implemented method for determining whether a foreign object is present in a peripheral device of a transaction terminal, comprising the steps of: capturing, by an imaging device of a peripheral device of a transaction termina, with the teachings of Connell having calculating said difference to obtain the plurality of difference values by subtracting by the processor
Wherein having Takeda calculating said difference to obtain the plurality of difference values by subtracting by the processor.
The motivation behind the modification would have been to detection foreign object using on image subtraction since both Takeda and Connell relate to image differencing wherein Takeda detecting foreign matters in various shapes in an inside of the card reader with a high degree of accuracy, while Connell detected one or more effects by identifying one or more objects in the preprocessed image signal using background subtraction (Please see Takeda (Pub No.: 20240054300 A1), Paragraph [0010], and Connell (US Patent No.: 7970229), see col 3, lines 43-46).
Regarding claim 9, Takeda in view of Zeng and BRAISAZ teach the method as claimed in claim 1, Takeda teaches further comprising: capturing, by the imaging device, an original baseline image with the imaging device during startup of the peripheral device on the transaction terminal (a first captured image which is obtained by imaging of the imaging device at the first timing – see [p][0097]); and when the foreign object is not determined as being present in the peripheral device (see [p][0097]); Takeda does not explicitly teaches replacing the original baseline image with said first image or a further image captured by the imaging device, thereby providing an updated baseline image.
Connell explicitly teaches replacing the original baseline image with said first image or a further image captured by the imaging device, thereby providing an updated baseline image ([i]f a valid, significantly small shift is estimated (typically less than /10 pixel) and it has been a long time since the reference image was initialized (typically 100 frames), then the background reference image is updated by simply copying the current frame – see col 6, lines 55-59).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to combine the teachings of Takeda in view of Zeng and BRAISAZ of having a computer-implemented method for determining whether a foreign object is present in a peripheral device of a transaction terminal, comprising the steps of: capturing, by an imaging device of a peripheral device of a transaction termina, with the teachings of Connell having replacing the original baseline image with said first image or a further image captured by the imaging device, thereby providing an updated baseline image.
Wherein having Takeda replacing the original baseline image with said first image or a further image captured by the imaging device, thereby providing an updated baseline image.
The motivation behind the modification would have been to detection foreign object using on image subtraction since both Takeda and Connell relate to image differencing wherein Takeda detecting foreign matters in various shapes in an inside of the card reader with a high degree of accuracy, while Connell detected one or more effects by identifying one or more objects in the preprocessed image signal using background subtraction (Please see Takeda (Pub No.: 20240054300 A1), Paragraph [0010], and Connell (US Patent No.: 7970229), see col 3, lines 43-46).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
Takeda et al (Pub No.: 20240054300) in view of Zeng et al (NPL titled: Reference-Based Defect Detection Network) in view of BRAISAZ et al (Pub No.: US 20230326176) in view of MASANORI et al (English Translation of JP 2015-180982).
Regarding claim 10, Takeda in view of Zeng and BRAISAZ does not explicitly teach the method as claimed in claim 1, further comprising: capturing, by the imaging device, said first image and the baseline image at a common brightness level.
MASANORI explicitly teaches capturing, by the imaging device, said first image and the baseline image at a common brightness level (base image and band of the banknote in the captured image are about the same brightness – see page 20, 1st paragraph)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to combine the teachings of Takeda as modified by Zeng and BRAISAZ of having a computer-implemented method for determining whether a foreign object is present in a peripheral device of a transaction terminal, comprising the steps of: capturing, by an imaging device of a peripheral device of a transaction termina, with the teachings of MASANORI of having capturing, by the imaging device, said first image and the baseline image at a common brightness level.
Wherein having Takeda capturing, by the imaging device, said first image and the baseline image at a common brightness level
The motivation behind the modification would have been to detection foreign object by adjusting the brightness of the images since both Takeda and MASANORI relate to image differencing wherein Takeda detecting foreign matters in various shapes in an inside of the card reader with a high degree of accuracy, while MASANORI adjusting the brightness of images (Please see Takeda (Pub No.: 20240054300 A1), Paragraph [0010], and MASANORI (English Translation of JP 2015-180982), see page 11, [p][004])
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
Takeda et al (Pub No.: 20240054300) in view of Zeng et al (NPL titled: Reference-Based Defect Detection Network) in view of BRAISAZ et al (Pub No.: US 20230326176) in view of MASANORI et al (English Translation of JP 2015-180982) as applied to claim 10 further in view of Nayak et al (Pub No.: US20220138909A1).
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Takeda in view of Zeng, BRAISAZ and MASANORI does not explicitly teach method as claimed in claim 10, whereby capturing said first image and the baseline image at the common brightness level comprises: for each of the first image and the baseline image: recording a video comprising a plurality of image frames; selecting an image frame of the plurality of image frames having a first brightness level that is within a preset range of brightness levels; and adjusting the first brightness level of the selected image frame to correspond to the common brightness level.
Nayak explicitly teaches whereby capturing said first image and the baseline image at the common brightness level comprises: for each of the first image and the baseline image: recording a video comprising a plurality of image frames (sequence of image frames for a digital video – see [p][0009]); selecting an image frame of the plurality of image frames having a first brightness level that is within a preset range of brightness levels (determining the number of frames to be blended may be based on one or more image quality metrics (such as a light intensity metric or a sharpness metric). The one or more image quality metrics may be determined from the current frame, or the one or more image quality metrics may be the most recent measurement since receiving the current frame. In some implementations, the image quality metric is a light intensity metric. In one example, the device 100 (such as the image signal processor 112) may determine a total luminance in a current image frame – see [p][0065]); and adjusting the first brightness level of the selected image frame to correspond to the common brightness level (blending the frames together may include combining each of the non-anchor frames to the anchor frame to adjust values in the anchor frame – see [p][0076]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to combine the teachings of Takeda in view of Zeng and BRAISAZ of having a computer-implemented method for determining whether a foreign object is present in a peripheral device of a transaction terminal, comprising the steps of: capturing, by an imaging device of a peripheral device of a transaction termina, Nayak with the teachings of having capturing said first image and the baseline image at the common brightness level comprises: for each of the first image and the baseline image: recording a video comprising a plurality of image frames; selecting an image frame of the plurality of image frames having a first brightness level that is within a preset range of brightness levels; and adjusting the first brightness level of the selected image frame to correspond to the common brightness level.
Wherein having Takeda capturing said first image and the baseline image at the common brightness level comprises: for each of the first image and the baseline image: recording a video comprising a plurality of image frames; selecting an image frame of the plurality of image frames having a first brightness level that is within a preset range of brightness levels; and adjusting the first brightness level of the selected image frame to correspond to the common brightness level.
The motivation behind the modification would have been to detection foreign object based on video images since both Takeda and Nayak relate to processing image wherein Takeda detecting foreign matters in various shapes in an inside of the card reader with a high degree of accuracy, while Nayak blends the number of image frames includes selecting an anchor frame from the number of image frames and combining each of the other image frames from the number of image frames to the anchor frame to adjust values in the anchor frame (Please see Takeda (Pub No.: 20240054300 A1), Paragraph [0010], and Nayak (US20220138909A1), see [p][0005]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7 and 15 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.
Claims 3-4 and 21 allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: none of the cited reference disclose: after calculating said difference, assigning, by the processor, one of two preset values to each difference value of the plurality of difference values, a first preset value being assigned when the difference value exceeds a first predetermined threshold and a second preset value being assigned when the difference value does not exceed the first predetermined threshold; and determining, by the processor, that a foreign object is present in the peripheral device when a predefined amount of pixels having the first preset value exceeds a second predetermined threshold in at least one region of interest associated with the internal region, and determining that the foreign object is not present when the predefined amount does not exceed the second predetermined threshold.
Conclusion
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 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.
Inquiries
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDRAE S ALLISON whose telephone number is (571)270-1052. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 9am-5pm EST.
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, Chineyere Wills-Burns, can be reached on (571) 272-9752. 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://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ANDRAE S ALLISON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2673
August 31, 2026
Prosecution Insights