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 Arguments
Rejections made under 112(b) have been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed 05/29/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
PNG
media_image1.png
366
602
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
340
506
media_image2.png
Greyscale
On pages 10-11, Applicant argues,
Examiner respectfully disagrees and asserts the combination of Stockman in view of Weiss does teach all the limitations of amended claim 1.
Stockman teaches a user-interactive palm verification device that displays a target marked element and a moving graphic corresponding to a current position of the palm for guiding a user to a target position. Stockman, paragraph 31, specifically teaches using a distance sensor for tracking the palm’s location with respect to a vertical location (z direction, distance between palm and sensor) and paragraph 59 teaches implementing a distance threshold corresponding to the position of the hand during alignment. Thus, Stockman teaches requiring a single distance range (distance threshold) between the palm and the target marked element but does not provide the missing requirement of having multiple marked elements displayed in a sequential order and satisfying distance ranges for each of the marked elements.
Weiss provides this missing requirement. Paragraphs 83-89, Weiss teaches capturing images of a palm of a user by providing graphics of different scales, which result in “the hand may be actually placed at different distances to the camera”. Weiss, paragraph 90, further teaches implementing a password requirement for these different scales, including a preset order for user palm alignment.
A person of ordinary skill in the art could have easily modified the user palm alignment and verification of Stockman to include displaying multiple target graphics for an ordered alignment as taught by Weiss. The resulting combination would simply apply Stockman’s position evaluation (including distance sensor measurements) for each alignment with the multiple provided scales. As for the requirements of claim 1, the user would be required to complete the password (alignment to multiple scales) for palm verification. This process would include the distance thresholding to confirm the palm’s location at each scale. Thus, the combination satisfies the limitations of claim 1 (see below rejection for additional details).
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 10, and 19 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, lines 15-17, “when the display location of the movable element in the moving region matches the display locations of the plurality of marked elements in the moving region a preset matching order” should read ““when the display location of the movable element in the moving region matches the display locations of the plurality of marked elements in the moving region in a preset matching order”. Claims 10 and 19 contain similar limitations.
Claim 1, lines 19-20, “displaying prompt information related to the matching order on the on the guidance interface” should read “displaying prompt information related to the matching order on the .
Appropriate correction is required.
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, 5-10, and 14-24 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, lines 15-24, recites “when the display location of the movable element in the moving region matches the display locations of the plurality of marked elements in the moving region a preset matching order and the current distances between the palm and the detection device is within corresponding target distance ranges of the plurality of marked elements: displaying prompt information related to the matching order on the on the guidance interface; capturing an image of the palm corresponding to each matched marked element by using a camera of the detection device; and recognizing and verifying the palm based on the images of the palm to obtain a verification result.” which is indefinite. The claim language requires that the steps of displaying, capturing, and recognizing/verifying occur as a result of the display locations of the movable elements and marked elements matching in a preset matching order. It is unclear how the capturing step can be performed in this sequence, as the palm would no longer be positioned at the marked element when the final condition is met. The specifications, paragraph 0065, describes capturing palm images by the camera when the movable element matches each marked element during the matching process. The captured images are then subsequently used to obtain the verification result.
Because the claim limitations do not provide a clear sequence of events, one of ordinary skill in the art could not ascertain the scope of the claim. For examination purposes, the claim limitations will be interpreted to align with the specification teaches of capturing of the palm images during the matching process for each matched marked element.
Claims 10 and 19 contain limitations found analogous to that of claim 1, and are therefore rejected for the same reason.
Claims 5-9, 14-18, and 20-24 are rejected as being dependent on a rejected base claim.
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, 5-6, 10, 14-15, 19, and 22-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stockman et al. (US 20210097547 A1), (hereinafter Stockman) in view of Weiss (US 20160292524 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Stockman teaches a method for guiding palm verification performed by a terminal device, and the method comprising:
displaying a guidance interface for palm verification, the guidance interface including graphical guidance information and the graphical guidance information comprising a movable element in a moving region, and a display location of the movable element in the moving region indicating a current distance between a palm and a detection device (Stockman, “Upon requesting to be enrolled in the user-recognition system, the user-recognition device may, with permission and/or upon explicit request by the user, begin collecting various types of biometric data, and/or other data, for the user. For example, the user-recognition device may include one or more imaging sensors (e.g., a camera) that begins capturing image data (e.g., an individual image, a sequence of images, a video, etc.) of at least a portion of the user, such as a palm of the user, a face of the user, or the like.”, pg. 2, paragraph 0022, lines 1-9, “As described above, the user-recognition device may request that the user move their hand to different locations, angles, and/or orientations as the user-recognition device captures the image data. In some instances, the user-recognition device may provide one or more user interfaces that help instruct the user to the move the hand to the different locations, angles, and/or orientations. For example, the user-recognition device may display a user interface (referred to as a “ first user interface ”) that includes instructions to place the user's hand over the imaging component of the user-recognition device... While displaying the first user interface, the user recognition device may detect the user's hand located over the imaging component. In some examples , the user-recognition device may detect the hand using a distance sensor. In other examples , the user-recognition device may detect the hand using the one or more imaging sensors . In either example, based on detecting the user's hand, the user recognition device may display a user interface (referred to as a “ second user interface ”) that provides instructions for placing the hand at a target location over the imaging component. As described herein, the target location over the imaging component may include both a target vertical location (e.g., Z-direction) with respect to the imaging component and a target horizontal location (e.g., X-direction and y-direction) with respect to the imaging component.”, pgs. 2 and 3, paragraphs 0029-0031, see Figs. 2A-2F A graphical representation is presented to user to guide a palm to a correct position for verification. Figures 2 illustrates this graphic including a first graphical element 204 indicating a target location/size for placing the palm and a second graphical element 206 indicating the palms current location/size.);
dynamically adjusting the display location of the movable element in the moving region on the guidance interface in response to a change of the current distance between the palm and the detection device (Stockman, “The location of the user's hand may include a vertical location with respect to the imaging component and a horizontal location with respect to the imaging component. In some examples, the user-recognition device may detect the location of the user's hand at set time intervals. For instance, the user-recognition device may detect the location of the user's hand every millisecond, second, and/or the like… The user-recognition device may then update the second graphical element based on the detected locations of the user's hand. For example, the user-recognition device may update the size of the second graphical element based on the vertical locations of the user's hand.”, pg. 3, paragraphs 0033-0034, As the user places their palm over the imaging device, the location and size of the second graphical element 206 is updated based on the real-time position and distance of the user’s palm, allowing the system to guides users to the target location and size of the first graphical element 204.)
Stockman does not teach dynamically adjusting the display location of the movable element in the moving region on the guidance interface in response to a change of the current distance between the palm and the detection device in accordance with a sequential display of a plurality of marked elements on the guidance interface, each marked element having a respective target distance range between the palm and the detection device; and when the display location of the movable element in the moving region matches the display locations of the plurality of marked elements in the moving region a preset matching order and the current distances between the palm and the detection device is within corresponding target distance ranges of the plurality of marked elements: displaying prompt information related to the matching order on the on the guidance interface; capturing an image of the palm corresponding to each matched marked element by using a camera of the detection device; and recognizing and verifying the palm based on the images of the palm to obtain a verification result.
However, Weiss teaches dynamically adjusting the display location of the movable element in the moving region on the guidance interface in response to a change of the current distance between the palm and the detection device in accordance with a sequential display of a plurality of marked elements on the guidance interface, each marked element having a respective target distance range between the palm and the detection device; and when the display location of the movable element in the moving region matches the display locations of the plurality of marked elements in the moving region a preset matching order and the current distances between the palm and the detection device is within corresponding target distance ranges of the plurality of marked elements: displaying prompt information related to the matching order on the on the guidance interface; capturing an image of the palm corresponding to each matched marked element by using a camera of the detection device; and recognizing and verifying the palm based on the images of the palm to obtain a verification result (Weiss, “The candidate person is instructed by system 100 to present a candidate body part to camera 105 So as to capture candidate images 40 of the candidate body part (step 1115). The captured candidate images are presented (step 1117) superimposed on the selected enrollment scale. 1201. In step 1119, the candidate aligns one of the candidate images with selected enrollment scale 1201. In decision block 1121, if there is an alignment between candidate image 40 and selected scale 1201, then candidate image 40 may be verified or not verified as an authentic image of the candidate person as the previously enrolled person in step 1123… During the enrollment processes shown above in FIGS. 13, 14 and 15, there may be no knowledge by mobile computer system 100 of the hand details (size etc) of a person to be enrolled. Therefore, in the enrollment stage, several graticule scales 1201 which have respective graticule lines 1203 may be displayed on display 109 and the person aligns their hand to each scale 1201. Hands can be aligned to scales 1201 where the whole hand should be placed inside a rectangular box of scale 1201. Referring to FIG. 13, when the person aligns their hand on display 109 to each of the scales 1201 during enrollment, as a result, the hand may be actually placed at different distances to camera 105 for each of the scales 1201. Mobile computer system 100 may select the best scale 1201 for the user where the features extracted from enrollment image 20 related to corresponding scale 1201, are the most robust and distinct. From this point on the best selected scale 1201 may be used for the person and an enrollment image saved and used during verification.”, pg. 5, paragraphs 0083-0087, “The process of verification may be repeated in a specific way. For example, during enrollment the user selects one of scales 1201a, 1201b, 1201c and aligns her hand to scale 1201. If verification is successful, the user continues to a second verification step with a different scale and so on. For a more secure option, the user during enrollment may combine scales 1201 in sequential verification steps and hence create a password from the ordered sequence of scales 1201.”, pg. 6, paragraph 0090, lines 1-8see Figs. 11 and 13, During enrollment, multiple target scales are presented to a user. The user aligns their palm with each scale, resulting in images captured at various distances. This includes allowing a user to specify a password or sequence of scales that must be collected as part of verification.).
Stockman teaches displaying a guidance interface for palm verification, including a moving element whose display location corresponding to the current distance between a user’s palm and the detection device and a target graphic for palm alignment (Stockman, pg. 10, paragraph 90, see Figs. 1A and 1B). Stockman teaches displaying prompt information for indicating the start of verification once the user is aligned with the target graphic (Stockman, pg. 4, paragraph 0040) but does not teach displaying multiple marked elements for a sequential verification process. Weiss teaches displaying multiple graphic scales for palm alignment by a user and collecting images of each of the scales in a target order for palm verification (see above). Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the palm verification of Stockman to include the ordered multi-graphic alignment as taught by Weiss (Weiss, pg. 6, pg. 5, paragraph 0086, paragraph 0090, lines 1-8). The motivation for doing so would have been include additional passcode protection for the user, thereby reducing the risk of imposters and improving the security of the palm verification (as suggested by Weiss, “The combination of steps are saved in the enrollment phase and at each verification the user follows the same verification steps. Hence an imposter cannot predict the combination of finger placements and selections of squares in the order performed during enrollment.”, pg. 6, paragraph 0090, lines 13-18). The combination of Stockman in view of Weiss would implement Weiss’s sequential scales into Stockman’s interface. The resulting system would present a first marked element and use Stockman’s movable element and distance thresholds to guide the user to the correct position for that scale. Upon matching, the system would capture an image and then prompt the user to proceed to the next marked element in the sequence. This process would repeat for all elements in the preset matching order. Therefore, the combination of Stockman in view of Weiss satisfies all the limitations of claim 1. Further, one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as described above by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine the teachings of Stockman in view of Weiss to obtain the invention as specified in claim 1.
Regarding claim 5, Stockman in view of Weiss teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein the method further comprises: displaying, on the guidance interface, second prompt information for guiding a user to perform an operation in accordance with the current distance between the palm and the detection device (Stockman, “For a third example, if the horizontal location of the user's hand is to the front of the target horizontal location for the imaging component, the second user interface may include an instruction indicating that the user needs to move the hand "BACK". For a fourth example, if the horizontal location of the user's hand is to the back of the target horizontal location for the imaging component, the second user interface may include an instruction indicating that the user needs to move the hand "FORWARD".”, pg. 4, paragraph 0036, lines 11-20).
Regarding claim 6, Stockman in view of Weiss teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein a display screen of the guidance interface does not overlap a palm detection plane of the detection device (Stockman, “In the example of FIG. 3B, the user-recognition device 104 may provide a user interface 310 that includes an instruction 312 associated with hovering the palm of the user over the user-recognition device 104 to pay for a transaction. Additionally, the user interface 310 includes an image 314 of a user placing a palm over the user-recognition device 104. In other words, the image 314 provides a representation of how the user should place the palm over the user-recognition device 104. In some instances, the user-recognition device 104 may display the user interface 310 right before detecting the palm of the user., pgs. 5 and 6, paragraph 0053, see Figs. 1A-1B, A display screen is configured in combination with the imaging device for capturing a user’s palm and providing guidance. The palm is detected based on distance and imaging sensors to facilitates contact-free palm detection.).
Claim 10 corresponds to claim 1, additionally reciting a computer device comprising a processor and a memory to execute the method according to claim 1. Stockman in view of Weiss teaches the addition of a computer device comprising a processor and a memory to execute the method according to claim 1 (Stockman, “For example, the user-recognition device 104 may comprise one or more processors 620 configured to power components of the user-recognition device 104 and may further include memory 622 which stores components that are at least partially executable by the processor(s) 620, as well as other data 662.”, pg. 9, paragraph 0087, lines 9-15). As indicated in the analysis of claim 1, Stockman in view of Weiss teaches all the limitation according to claim 1. Therefore, claim 10 is rejected for the same reason as claim 1.
Claims 14 and 15 corresponds to claims 5 and 6, respectively, additionally reciting a computer device comprising a processor and a memory to execute the method according to claims 5 and 6. Stockman in view of Weiss teaches the addition of a computer device comprising a processor and a memory to execute the method according to claims 5 and 6(see analysis of claim 10). As indicated in the analysis of claims 5 and 6, Stockman in view of Weiss teaches all the limitation according to claim 5 and 6. Therefore, claims 14 and 15 are rejected for the same reasons as claim 5 and 6.
Claim 19 corresponds to claim 1, additionally reciting a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing a computer program to execute the method according to claim 1. Stockman in view of Weiss teaches the addition of a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing a computer program to execute the method according to claim 1 (Stockman, “As shown in FIG. 9, the user-recognition device 104 includes one or more memories 622. The memory 622 comprises one or more computer-readable storage media (CRSM).”, pg. 12, paragraph 0116, lines 1-4). As indicated in the analysis of claim 1, Stockman in view of Weiss teaches all the limitation according to claim 1. Therefore, claim 19 is rejected for the same reason as claim 1.
Claims 22 and 23 correspond to claim 5 and 6, respectively, additionally reciting a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing a computer program to execute the method according to claims 5 and 6. Stockman in view of Weiss teaches the addition of a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing a computer program to execute the method according to claim 1 (see analysis of claim 19). As indicated in the analysis of claims 5 and 6, Stockman in view of Weiss teaches all the limitation according to claims 5 and 6. Therefore, claim 19 is rejected for the same reason as claims 5 and 6.
Claims 8, 17 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stockman et al. (US 20210097547 A1) in view of Weiss (US 20160292524 A1) and further in view of Matsunaga et al. (JP 2020188372 A), (hereinafter Matsunaga).
Regarding claim 8, Stockman in view of Weiss teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein the method further comprises: capturing a current frame of image of the palm by using a camera of the detection device; performing palm detection on the current frame of image to obtain predicted coordinates and a predicted size that correspond to the palm (Stockman, “The user-recognition device may then update the second graphical element based on the detected locations of the user's hand. For example, the user-recognition device may update the size of the second graphical element based on the vertical locations of the user's hand. For instance, if the vertical location of the user's hand is proximate to the target vertical location for the imaging component (e.g., eight-five millimeters above the imaging component), the user-recognition device may cause the size of the second graphical element to match the size the first graphical element… The user-recognition device may also update the position of the second graphical element based on the horizontal locations of the user's hand. For instance, if the horizontal location of the user's hand is proximate to the target horizontal location for the imaging component (e.g., near the middle of the imaging component), the user-recognition device may cause the second graphical element to be centered within the first graphical element.”, pg. 3, paragraphs 0034-0035, The palm’s size and location are detected across image frames to dynamically update the users guidance graphic.).
Stockman in view of Weiss does not teach determining a target distance sensor from a plurality of distance sensors corresponding to the detection device based on the predicted coordinates and the predicted size; and obtaining the current distance between the palm and the detection device based on distance information corresponding to the target distance sensor.
However, Matsunaga teaches determining a target distance sensor from a plurality of distance sensors corresponding to the detection device based on the predicted coordinates and the predicted size; and obtaining the current distance between the palm and the detection device based on distance information corresponding to the target distance sensor (Matsunaga, “The plurality of sensors 30 are provided on the rear bumper 5 at intervals in the vehicle width direction X. In the present embodiment, the plurality of sensors 30 are six known sensors 31 to have a function of measuring a linear distance from a rear obstacle W (see FIG. 2) in the periphery of the own vehicle 1. It is composed of 36. Each of the six sensors 31 to 36 is set with a detection area B capable of detecting the distance to the obstacle W according to the time until the transmitted ultrasonic wave is reflected by the obstacle W and returns.”, pg. 6, lines 18-23, “When at least one of the six sensors 31 to 36 detects an obstacle W while the back camera 21 is activated, the electronic control unit 60 derives a measured value D of the distance to the obstacle W by the calculation unit 63. To do. Further, the electronic control unit 60 determines the target sensor having the smallest measured value D of the distance to the obstacle W among the six sensors 31 to 36 by the determination unit 64. Then, the electronic control unit 60 controls the drive unit 40 so that the detection area B of the target sensor is included in the shooting range C of the back camera 21 according to the cooperative control of the six sensors 31 to 36 and the back camera 21.”, pg. 8, lines 6-19, Various distance sensors are configured with a camera for object detection. A distance to an object for each sensor is measured and the sensor with the smallest measured distance is designated as the target sensor. The cameras viewpoint is then adjusted according to the target sensors detection area.).
Stockman in view of Weiss teaches displaying a guidance interface for palm verification, including updating a guidance graphic by detecting the position and distance of a user’s palm using image and distance sensors (Stockman, pg. 3, paragraphs 0030 and 0034-0035). Stockman in view of Weiss does not teach selecting a target distance sensor from a plurality of distance sensors. Matsunaga teaches selecting a target sensor, which has a smallest distance to an object, from an array of sensors (see above). Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the palm detection of Stockman in view of Weiss to include target distance sensor selection as taught by Matsunaga (Matsunaga, pg. 8, lines 6-19). The motivation for doing so would have been to improve the accuracy of palm detection by ensuring the system relies on the most relevant sensor reading. The combination of Stockman in view of Weiss and further in view of Matsunaga would determine a target sensor based on the palm’s position and distance, adjust the image data accordingly, and then update the guidance graphic based on that adjusted data. Further, one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as described above by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine the teachings of Stockman in view of Weiss with Matsunaga to obtain the invention as specified in claim 8.
Claim 17 corresponds to claim 8, additionally reciting a computer device comprising a processor and a memory to execute the method according to claim 8. Stockman in view of Weiss and further in view of Matsunaga teaches the addition of a computer device comprising a processor and a memory to execute the method according to claim 8 (see analysis of claim 10). As indicated in the analysis of claim 8, Stockman in view of Weiss and further in view of Matsunaga teaches all the limitation according to claim 8. Therefore, claim 17 is rejected for the same reason as claim 8.
Claim 20 corresponds to claim 8, additionally reciting a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing a computer program to execute the method according to claim 8. Stockman in view of Weiss and further in view of Matsunaga teaches the addition of a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing a computer program to execute the method according to claim 8 (see analysis of claim 19). As indicated in the analysis of claim 8, Stockman in view of Weiss and further in view of Matsunaga teaches all the limitation according to claim 8. Therefore, claim 20 is rejected for the same reason as claim 8.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7, 9, 16, 18, 21, and 24 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.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CONNOR LEVI HANSEN whose telephone number is (703)756-5533. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00-5:00 (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, Sumati Lefkowitz can be reached at (571) 272-3638. 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.
/CONNOR L HANSEN/Examiner, Art Unit 2672
/SUMATI LEFKOWITZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2672
Prosecution Insights