Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 18, 2026
Application No. 18/625,883

Multiple Illumination Conditions for Biometric Authentication

Non-Final OA §103
Filed
Apr 03, 2024
Examiner
HOFFMAN, BRANDON S
Art Unit
2433
Tech Center
2400 — Computer Networks
Assignee
Apple Inc.
OA Round
2 (Non-Final)
91%
Grant Probability
Favorable
2-3
OA Rounds
2y 9m
To Grant
97%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 91% — above average
91%
Career Allow Rate
1125 granted / 1238 resolved
+32.9% vs TC avg
Moderate +6% lift
Without
With
+6.3%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 9m
Avg Prosecution
31 currently pending
Career history
1269
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
7.7%
-32.3% vs TC avg
§103
34.7%
-5.3% vs TC avg
§102
33.8%
-6.2% vs TC avg
§112
5.2%
-34.8% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1238 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
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 . DETAILED ACTION Claims 1-20 are pending in this office action. Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on January 28, 2026, and March 20, 2026, are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner. 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. Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kumar et al. (U.S. Patent No. 10,872,221). Regarding claims 1, 13, and 17, Kumar et al. teaches a system, comprising: an illumination source comprising a plurality of light-emitting elements, wherein one or more individual ones of the light-emitting elements are configured to be controlled independently of one or more other light-emitting elements to emit light towards one or more biometric aspects (fig. 2 and abstract); a camera configured to capture light reflected from the one or more biometric aspects (fig. 2, ref. num 212); and a controller comprising one or more processors, wherein the controller is configured to (fig. 2, ref. num 220): direct the illumination source to emit light using a plurality of selected configurations for the light emitting elements resulting in the emitted light being emitted according to a plurality of illumination channels (col. 4, lines 16-39); direct the camera to capture respective images of the object when respective ones of the illumination channels are applied (col. 8, lines 42-55); and analyze the respective captured images for use in biometric authentication, wherein the analysis accounts for variations across the respective captured images due to the application of the respective ones of the illumination channels (col. 17, lines 23-35). Kumar et al. specifically describes hand-based biometrics, whereas the claims are directed towards iris-based biometrics. The specific type of biometric data is an obvious modification that would have been recognized by a person having ordinary skill in the art. Regarding claims 2 and 14, Kumar et al. teaches wherein the selected plurality of illumination channels comprise particular combinations of the light emitted from the light-emitting elements having selected: wavelength combinations; intensities; and directions (col. 10, lines 62-67). Regarding claim 3, Kumar et al. teaches wherein to perform the analysis of the respective captured images the controller is further configured to: cause a record to be maintained of an order in which ones of the respective illumination channels are applied when capturing the respective ones of the images; determine whether the variations observed in the respective ones of the images are consistent with the illumination channels applied according to the recorded order (col. 8, line 56 through col. 9, line 14). Regarding claim 4, Kumar et al. teaches wherein the analysis of the respective captured images is performed using a trained machine learning model (col. 13, lines 26-44). Regarding claim 5, Kumar et al. teaches wherein the trained machine learning model was trained using a dataset comprising images labeled according to the respective illumination channels at which the respective images were captured (col. 13, lines 26-44). Regarding claim 6, Kumar et al. teaches wherein to perform the analysis of the respective captured images the controller is further configured to: compare information derived from one or more of the respective captured images to information derived from one or more respective registration images corresponding to a user wherein a same set of illumination channels were applied to the one or more respective captured images and the one or more respective registration images (col. 17, lines 23-35). Regarding claim 7, Kumar et al. teaches wherein the comparison of the information derived from the one or more respective captured images and the information derived from the one or more respective registration images is performed as part of a user authentication process wherein the user authentication process further comprises an iris-based biometric authentication process (abstract, non-contact biometric). Regarding claim 8, Kumar et al. teaches wherein information considered in the comparison of the information derived from the one or more of the respective captured images to the information derived from the one or more respective registration images comprises one or more of: information indicating three-dimensional structure of the one or more biometric aspects; reflectivity of the surface of the one or more biometric aspects; and wavelengths of light reflected from the one or more biometric aspects (col. 16, lines 49-57). Regarding claim 9, Kumar et al. teaches wherein the controller is configured to perform said compare the information derived from the one or more of the respective captured images to the information derived from the one or more respective registration images, in response to: a determination that the variations observed in the information derived from the respective ones of the images are consistent with illumination channels applied according to an order when capturing the respective ones of the images (col. 17, lines 23-35). Regarding claim 10, Kumar et al. teaches wherein the information derived from one or more of the respective captured images and the information derived from one or more respective registration images is determined by one or more trained machine learning models (col. 13, lines 26-44). Regarding claim 11, Kumar et al. teaches wherein the system further comprises a head-mounted device (col. 25, lines 16-32). Regarding claim 12, Kumar et al. teaches wherein the system further comprises: a mobile user device; a vehicle; a stationary device (col. 25, lines 16-32). Regarding claims 15 and 19, Kumar et al. teaches wherein the analysis of the respective captured images is performed by: selecting respective one or more expected illumination channels based on the respective one or more captured images; and determining whether the respective one or more expected illumination channels are the same as the respective one or more illumination channels applied when the respective one or more images were captured (col. 20, lines 4-15). Regarding claims 16 and 20, Kumar et al. teaches wherein the analysis of the respective captured images is performed by comparing information derived from one or more of the respective captured images to respective templates corresponding to a user and the respective one or more illumination channels of the respective one or more images (col. 23, lines 48-56). Regarding claim 18, Kumar et al. teaches further comprising performing a randomization process to select the plurality of illumination configurations (col. 6, lines 43-55 and col. 12, lines 39-57). Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRANDON HOFFMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-3863. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30AM-5:00PM. 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, Jeffrey Pwu can be reached at (571)272-6798. 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. /BRANDON HOFFMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2433
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Apr 03, 2024
Application Filed
Nov 05, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Jan 20, 2026
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)
Jan 20, 2026
Examiner Interview Summary
Jan 23, 2026
Response Filed
Apr 07, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12598185
DESCENDENT CASE ROLE ALIAS
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12597311
Access Control System for Electric Vehicle Charging
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12579293
SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR API GATEWAY SYNCHRONIZATION WITH CLOUD STORAGE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12579295
SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR ELECTRONIC DEVICE ACCESS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12566878
DATA SANITIZER
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 03, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

2-3
Expected OA Rounds
91%
Grant Probability
97%
With Interview (+6.3%)
2y 9m
Median Time to Grant
Moderate
PTA Risk
Based on 1238 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month