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
This Office Action is in response to the U.S. patent application 18630595 filed on 09 April 2024, and Applicant’s Amendment filed on 02 April 2026.
Of original claims 1-20: claim 1 has been amended, and claims 4 and 16-20 have been canceled; no claims have been added; claims 1 is the only remaining independent claim. Accordingly, claims 1-3 and 5-15 remain pending, and have been examined in this application. This Action is made FINAL.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, line 3, after “camera,” a comma should be inserted;
Claim 1, second last line, after “camera,” a comma should be inserted.
Response to Arguments
The rejection of claim1 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 is withdrawn in view of Applicant’s claim amendments.
Applicant’s 102- and/or 103-related arguments as set forth in Applicant’s 02 April 2026, Amendment, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive as follows.
Applicant’s argument: “At page 6 of the Office Action, the Office alleges that Nayshtut anticipates the claimed production of a cropped video stream, referring specifically to paragraph [0035] thereof. However, the cited portion ofNayshtut refers to the filtering out of a specific wavelength of light such that an optical watermark signal is filtered out of the image. Conversely, the present claims recite cropping the field of view of the video stream. In Nayshtut the field of view remains the same while only the displayed light is changed via the filter, whereas, in the present claims, the field of view is cropped. Thus, the cited reference fails to anticipate at least this recitation of the present claims. Accordingly, for at least this reason, the Applicant respectfully submits that the present claims are patentable over the cited reference.”
The Examiner disagrees with the Applicant. Under a broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), words of the claim must be given their plain meaning, unless such meaning is inconsistent with the specification. The plain meaning of a term means the ordinary and customary meaning given to the term by those of ordinary skill in the art at the relevant time. In the present BRI analysis, the Examiner’s the definition provided by The Free Dictionary by Farlex available on-line (https://www.thefreedictionary.com/cropping), which defines “cropping” with respect to photography as “(Photography) the trimming or masking of unwanted edges or areas of a negative or print”. It is respectfully noted that such definition does not limit cropping to the “edges” of a photograph, i.e., cropping can occur at other “areas of the photograph”. A good explanation might be a picture of a family where someone’s goal is to remove the image of one of the parents (e.g., because of divorce). If the parent-to-be-removed’s image is conveniently near the edge of the photograph, that parent’s image might be removed by trimming an edge of the photograph off and discarding. However, if the parent-to-be-removed’s image is at a center of the family group, that parent’s image might be removed by “masking” (e.g., air-brushing). Both methods would be a “cropping” of that parent’s image, and would result in a “cropped field of view” in that something (i.e., one parent’s image) has been “cropped” out of that field of view.
Regarding Nayshtut’s “wavelength filtering” (Nayshtu para. [0035], “image capturing device 214 may filter out wavelengths of light used to emit the optical watermark signal (e.g., filter out infrared light)”) the Examiner’s BRI is that the filtering out of wavelengths is akin to masking, and would result in a “cropped field of view).
In any event, the newly-applied Xu reference applied in a 103 rejection ahead, more clearly and less-disputingly discloses a “cropping” arrangement again meeting the limitations of Applicant’s amended claim.
The Examiner respectfully suggests that the claim be further amended; details in the specification be incorporated, to distinguish the claimed invention over prior art of record. Should the Applicant desire an interview to further clarify the claim interpretation/rejections, please contact the Examiner at (571) 272-2642 to schedule an interview.
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 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.
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.
Claims 1-3 and 5-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nayshtut et al. (“Nayshtut”; US20180130168A1) in view of Xu et al. (“Xu”; US12439167B1).
Per claim 1: Nayshtut discloses a system (Nayshtu FIG. 2, “Computing System 202”), comprising:
a first projector (Nayshtu FIG. 2, “Projection Unit 212”); and
a video camera (Naystu FIG. 2, “Image Capturing Device 214”);
a first analyzer circuit (Nayshtu FIG. 2, “Image Capturing Device 214”, “Extracted Watermark Signal” and “Comparator 210”),
the first projector being configured to form an illuminated pattern within a first field of view of the video camera (Nayshtu para. [0017], “the term “optical watermark signal” refers to an optical identifier that is emitted into a scene prior to a camera capturing the scene.”),
the video camera being configured to capture the illuminated pattern within the first field of view (Nayshtu para. [0035], “After the projection unit 212 projects the optical watermark signal into the scene, the image capturing device 214 captures a scene that includes the reflected optical watermark signal to generate an image source. The image capturing device 214 may include one or more image sensors (not shown in FIG. 2) that detect for the reflected optical watermark signal within the image source”), and,
the first analyzer circuit being configured to determine whether the illuminated pattern is present in a video stream produced by the video camera (Nayshtu para. [0036], “As shown in FIG. 2, the comparator 210 receives the extracted watermark signal and the expected watermark signal from the pattern randomizer 208. After receiving the extracted watermark signal, the comparator 210 compares the reflected watermark signal with the expected watermark signal to determine if a match occurs and provides the authentication results to the visual authentication application 204.”).
Applicant and the Undersigned continue to dispute whether Nayshtut’s “wavelength filtering” (Nayshtu para. [0035], “image capturing device 214 may filter out wavelengths of light used to emit the optical watermark signal (e.g., filter out infrared light)”) may be characterizable as a first analyzer circuit being configured to produce a cropped video stream comprising of a cropped field of view excluding the illuminated pattern.
However, in an analogous art, Xu explicitly discloses an arrangement characterizable as a first analyzer circuit being configured to produce a cropped video stream comprising of a cropped field of view excluding the illuminated pattern. In explanation, Xu’s FIG. 7 illustrates an example video frame 350 sub-divided into nine zones 360a-360i illuminated by the addressable segments 250a-250n, respectively, of an IR illumination device 106 (Xu’s FIG. 2) having emitters (e.g., 262a-262t). FIG. 7 represents a full video frame and/or a full field-of-view illuminated by a “structured light pattern (e.g., a speckle pattern)”.
Xu’s FIG. 8, in contrast, illustrates an example video frame 420 sub-divided into nine zones 360a-360i, with the difference being only two zones (360c, 360f) representing a smaller “region of interest” (Wu col. 18, lines 57-64, “The processor 102 may be configured to crop (e.g., trim to) a region of interest from a full video frame (e.g., generate the region of interest video frames). The processor 102 may generate the video frames and select an area. In an example, cropping the region of interest may generate a second image. The cropped image (e.g., the region of interest video frame) may be smaller than the original video frame (e.g., the cropped image may be a portion of the captured video).”). If any one of Xu’s FIG. 8 cropped (i.e., shaded) zones 360a-360b, 360d-360e and 360g-360i is interpreted as an independent zone having been “cropped”, then Xu’s processor 102 and configuration meets Applicant’s limitations of having “a first analyzer circuit being configured to produce a cropped video stream comprising of a cropped field of view excluding the illuminated pattern”.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Nayshtut to include, as taught by Xu, a first analyzer circuit being configured to produce a cropped video stream comprising of a cropped field of view excluding the illuminated pattern. Motivation for modifying would have been to decrease power and required processing, in order to increase an attractiveness and broadened adoption of the Nayshtut/Xu- arrangement within the video security field.
Per claim 2: The Nayshtut/Xu combination disclosed the system of claim 1. Nayshtut further discloses an arrangement wherein the first projector is configured to project the illuminated pattern onto a surface in the first field of view of the video camera (Nayshtu para. [0036], “To implement optical feedback, the computing system may emit one or more optical watermark signals that include a modulated light and/or an optical pattern into the scene for a specified amount of time (e.g., about one second)”).
Per claim 3: The Nayshtut/Xu combination disclosed the system of claim 1. Nayshtut further discloses an arrangement wherein the first projector is in the first field of view of the video camera and is configured to illuminate the video camera directly (Nayshtu para. [0035], “After the projection unit 212 projects the optical watermark signal into the scene, the image capturing device 214 captures a scene that includes the reflected optical watermark signal to generate an image source. The image capturing device 214 may include one or more image sensors (not shown in FIG. 2) that detect for the reflected optical watermark signal within the image source”).
Per claim 5: The Nayshtut/Xu combination disclosed the system of claim 1. Nayshtut further discloses an arrangement wherein the illuminated pattern in a plurality of frames of the video stream (Nayshtu para. [0032], “if the entire duration of the visual authentication session is about three seconds and the emission duration of the optical watermark signal is also about three seconds”; [Note: Common video camera average frame speeds (FPS) are: 24fps for cinematic films, 30fps for TV/online video, and 60fps or higher for smooth action/slow-motion in sports or gaming; Even at the slowest 24fps, a “three second” duration would encompass a plurality frames of a video stream.) represents an encrypted signal (Nayshtu para. [0043], “the anti-spoof engine 506 includes a key manager 516 that produces one or more keys to encrypt and/or generate hash values for at least some of the watermark information. For example, the anti-spoof engine 506 may generate hash values and/or encrypt data element information and/or other information to generate the optical pattern”.
Per claim 6: The Nayshtut/Xu combination disclosed the system of claim 1. Nayshtut further discloses an arrangement wherein the illuminated pattern represents, in one frame of the video stream, an encrypted signal (Nayshtu para. [0043], “the anti-spoof engine 506 includes a key manager 516 that produces one or more keys to encrypt and/or generate hash values for at least some of the watermark information. For example, the anti-spoof engine 506 may generate hash values and/or encrypt data element information and/or other information to generate the optical pattern”.
Per claim 7: The Nayshtut/Xu combination disclosed the system of claim 1. Nayshtut further discloses an arrangement wherein the illuminated pattern represents an encrypted indication of a time at which the illuminated pattern was formed (Nayshtu para. [0018], “the optical watermark signal may be encoded with one or more various data elements, such as timestamp information”; Nayshtu para. [0024], “the anti-spoof engine may create hash values for one or more types of data elements, such as timestamp information, geolocation coordinates (e.g., GPS coordinates), unique computer ID, and/or OTP sequences. Additionally or alternatively, the anti-spoof engine may enhance security of the data element information by obtaining one or more security keys within a key manager to encrypt and sign the various data element information and/or hash values”).
Per claim 8: The Nayshtut/Xu combination disclosed the system of claim 1. Nayshtut further discloses an arrangement further comprising a reflector, configured to reflect light from the first projector to the video camera (Nayshtu para. [0016], “The image capturing device may also include other image circuitry and/or reflective elements (e.g., mirrors) utilized to capture the image.”).
Per claim 9: The Nayshtut/Xu combination disclosed the system of claim 1. Nayshtut further discloses an arrangement wherein the video camera is configured to send the video stream to the first analyzer circuit in encrypted form (Nayshtu para. [0043], “the anti-spoof engine 506 includes a key manager 516 that produces one or more keys to encrypt and/or generate hash values for at least some of the watermark information. For example, the anti-spoof engine 506 may generate hash values and/or encrypt data element information and/or other information to generate the optical pattern.”).
Per claim 10: The Nayshtut/Xu combination disclosed the system of claim 1. Nayshtut further discloses an arrangement wherein the first analyzer circuit is configured to produce an encrypted video stream (Nayshtu para. [0024], “the anti-spoof engine may create hash values for one or more types of data elements, such as timestamp information, geolocation coordinates (e.g., GPS coordinates), unique computer ID, and/or OTP sequences. Additionally or alternatively, the anti-spoof engine may enhance security of the data element information by obtaining one or more security keys within a key manager to encrypt and sign the various data element information and/or hash values”).
Per claim 11: The Nayshtut/Xu combination disclosed the system of claim 1. Nayshtut further discloses an arrangement wherein the system is configured to pan the video camera to capture the first field of view and a second field of view within a scene (Nayshtu para. [0036], “If the authentication results from comparator 210 indicate that the extracted watermark signal matches the expected watermark signal, then the visual authentication application 204 may continue with the visual authentication operation, such as proceeding to authenticate the biometric elements within the image source.”).
Per claim 12: The Nayshtut/Xu combination disclosed the system of claim 11. Nayshtut further discloses an arrangement wherein the first projector is configured to form a first illuminated pattern in the first field of view and to form a second illuminated pattern in the second field of view (Nayshtu para. [0037], “for a visual authentication session, the computing system 202 may emit a first optical watermark signal for a duration of about a second, a second optical watermark signal for a duration of about two seconds, and a third optical watermark signal for a duration of about three seconds. Generally, emitting optical watermarks signals for shorter durations may decrease the likelihood and increase the cost of compromising optical watermark signals.”; [Note: The illuminated pattern resultant from the “first optical watermark signal for a duration of about a second” is being characterized as the “first field of view”, while the illustrated pattern resultant from the “second optical watermark signal for a duration of about two seconds” is being characterized as the “second field of view”, i.e., with the projector panning differing field for differing periods of time.).
Per claim 13: The Nayshtut/Xu combination disclosed the system of claim 11. Nayshtut further discloses an arrangement further comprising a second projector, wherein:
the first projector is configured to form an illuminated pattern within the first field of view of the video camera, and
the second projector is configured to form an illuminated pattern within the second field of view of the video camera (Nayshtu para. [0047], “Additionally, rather than using a single anti-spoof engine that manages both the emission and extraction of the optical watermark signals, other embodiments may use more than one anti-spoof engines”).
Per claim 14: The Nayshtut/Xu combination disclosed the system of claim 1. Nayshtut further discloses an arrangement wherein the video camera is capable of detecting infrared light, and the first projector is configured to emit infrared light (Nayshtu para. [0017], “the optical watermark signal may be emitted as infrared light, which falls in the wavelength range of about 700 to 1000 nm, and thus is not visible or detectable by a human eye”).
Per claim 15: The Nayshtut/Xu combination disclosed the system of claim 1. Nayshtut further discloses an arrangement wherein the analyzer is configured, in response to determining that the illuminated pattern is not present in a video stream, to take a mitigation action (Nayshtu para. [0036], “If, based on the authentication results the expected watermark signal is mismatched with the expected watermark signal, the visual authentication application 204 may perform a variety of functions, such as aborting the authentication process, request the user to start a new authentication session because the previous authentication session failed, and/or deny the user access to the computing system. In instances where the anti-spoof engine 206 fails to detect an extracted watermark signal, the comparator 210 may output the authentication result indicating a mismatch and/or notify the visual authentication application 204 that anti-spoof engine 206 was unable to obtain an extracted watermark signal.”).
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 extension fee 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 Paul J Skwierawski whose telephone number is (571)272-2642. The examiner can normally be reached 6:00am-3:30pm weekdays.
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 supervisory primary examiner (SPE) Luu Pham can be reached on (571) 270-5002. 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.
/Paul Skwierawski/
Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2439
/LUU T PHAM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2439
Prosecution Insights