DETAILED ACTION
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements submitted on 04/12/2024, 08/26/2024 and 10/23/2024 have been considered by the Examiner and made of record in the application file.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claims 1, 11 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kumar (US 2019/0392189 A1) in view of Aoki (US 2013/0243264 A1).
Regarding claims 1, 11 and 20, Kumar discloses a palm image recognition method performed by a computer device, the method comprising (Abstract, ¶¶ [0060]-[0061], Fig. 2; Kumar teaches a non-contact biometric identification system in which a scanner obtains palm image data and a computing device system processes the image data for palm based identification.)
[claim 11: A computer device comprising a processor and a memory, the memory storing at least one computer program, and the at least one computer program being loaded and executed by the processor and causing the computer device to implement a palm image recognition method including: (¶ [0194])
[claim 20: a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing at least one computer program, and the at least one computer program being loaded and executed by a processor of a computer device and causing the computer device to implement a palm image recognition method including: (¶ [0199])
performing palm detection on a palm image captured by a camera to generate a palm box for a palm in the palm image (¶¶ [0060], [0065], [0075]; Figs. 2-4; Kumar teaches camera acquired raw image data and a palm detection module that determines whether a palm is present and determines a boundary box designating the palm area.)
determining location information of the palm relative to the camera based on the palm box and the palm image (¶¶ [0071]-[0072], [0076]-[0079]; Kumar teaches using the palm boundary box and image data to evaluate palm orientation, pose, brightness, blur and hand geometry. Kumar also teaches directing the user to place the hand in a particular orientation, pose, or position with respect to the scanner.)
displaying a palm identifier corresponding to the palm based on the location information (¶ [0079]; Kumar teaches output to a display to direct the user’s hand position)
Kumar fails to disclose the palm identifier being used for indicating the palm to move to a preset spatial location corresponding to the camera to obtain an object identifier corresponding to the palm image.
In related art, Aoki discloses a palm identifier being used for indicating the palm to move to a preset spatial location corresponding to the camera to obtain an object identifier corresponding to the palm image. (abstract, ¶¶ [0089]-[0093], [0115]-[0117]; Aoki teaches a guidance image display unit that displays a guidance image for guiding a user’s biometric portion to an appropriate distance, where the guidance image changes continuously or in stages according to the measured distance. Aoki further teaches guiding the biometric portion to an appropriate range before image acquisition, including guidance in distance and XY directions. Kumar teaches obtaining a user identifier from the palm image signature.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate the teachings of Aoki into the teachings of Kumar to improve authentication accuracy and usability.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-10 and 12-19 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
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BOBBAK SAFAIPOUR whose telephone number is (571)270-1092. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:00am - 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, Stephen Koziol can be reached at (408) 918-7630. 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.
/BOBBAK SAFAIPOUR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2665
Prosecution Insights