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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 03/17/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 05/16/2024 is 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 § 102
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3, 6-8, 11, 13, 14, 15, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Rouh et al (“Rouh” hereinafter, U.S. Publication No. 2018/0295346 A1).
As per claim 1, Rouh discloses an information processing system (paragraph [0085]: device 1 includes an iris image taking system 30), comprising: at least one memory that is configured to store instructions; and at least one processor (paragraph [0082]: device 1 includes a computer processor system 37a and 37b) that is configured to execute the instructions to acquire a first image and a second image that are captured such that the optical axes intersect at a predetermined point (see figure 1 for cameras 21, 22 and 23 for capturing images with intersecting optical axes); determine whether or not a difference between a position of a target in the first image and a position of the target in the second image is in a predetermined range (paragraphs [0081], [0101]-[0102], determining whether the subject’s face is within a predetermine range based on triangulation from the images captured by the cameras 21, 22 and 23); and perform a control of capturing an iris image of the target in a case where the difference is in the predetermined range (paragraph [0102]: perform iris recognition once the face of the subject is determined by triangulation).
As per claim 2, Rough discloses wherein the at least one processor is configured to execute the instructions to identify an eye position of the target from the first image and the second image, and perform control of capturing the iris image on the basis of the identified eye position (paragraph [0085]).
As per claim 3, Rouh discloses wherein the position of the target in the first image and the position of the target in the second image are a position a right eye and a position a left eye of the target (paragraph [0085]).
As per claim 6, see figure 1 and paragraph [0069]
As per claim 7, see figures 5.
As per claim 8, see paragraph [0117] and figure 5.
As per claim 11, see paragraph [0012] & [0068].
As per claim 13, (paragraph [0081] & [0101]-[0102])
As per claim 14, (paragraph [0081] & [0101]-[0102])
As per claim 15, see explanation in claim 1.
As per claim 16, see explanation in claim 1, the examiner notes Rouh’s system is a computer-like system, which inherently includes a non-transitory computer-readable medium.
Claims 1, 4, 12, 15 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Ebisawa et al (“Ebisawa” hereinafter, U.S. Publication No. 2015/0287206 A1).
As per claim 1, Ebisawa discloses an information processing system (abstract), comprising: at least one memory that is configured to store instructions; and at least one processor (figure 1, processing device 1) that is configured to execute the instructions to acquire a first image and a second image that are captured such that the optical axes intersect at a predetermined point (figure 1, cameras 2A and 2B, paragraph [0085]-[0088]); determine whether or not a difference between a position of a target in the first image and a position of the target in the second image is in a predetermined range (paragraph [0111]); and perform a control of capturing an iris image of the target in a case where the difference is in the predetermined range (paragraphs: [0168] & [0172]-[0175]).
As per claim 4, Ebisawa discloses wherein the predetermined point is set at a rea side of a focus position when viewed from a camera that captures the iris image, and the at least one processor is configured to execute the instruction to perform a control of continuously capturing iris images of the target who approaches the camera that captures the iris image, after the difference becomes in the predetermined range (see figure 6b).
As per claim 12, see paragraph [0136] for selecting one of a plurality of targets and capturing the iris image of the selected targets.
As per claim 15, see explanation in claim 1.
As per claim 16, see explanation in claim 1, the examiner notes Ebisawa’s system is a computer-like system, which inherently includes a non-transitory computer-readable medium.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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, 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 5 and 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ebisawa in view of Hanna et al (“Hanna” hereinafter, U.S. Publication No. 2005/0084179 A1).
As per claim 5, Ebisawa teaches using at least two cameras for identifying and tracking a subject’s pupils as shown in figure 1 and then perform iris recognition. However, Ebisawa does not explicitly teach select at least one high quality iris image from the continuous captured iris images; and perform iris authentication by using the selected iris image.
Hana in paragraph [0041] teaches “when multiple iris images are being acquired while an individual is on the move, the iris images need to be processed and selected before being sent to a recognition module”.
At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify Ebisawa in light of Hana’s teaching to select a high-quality iris image for iris authentication. One would be motivated to do so because a high-quality image would provide a more accurate authentication/recognition result.
For claims 9-10, see figure 1 in Hanna for fourth and fifth cameras for image capturing.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TOM Y LU whose telephone number is (571)272-7393. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9AM - 5PM.
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, Matthew Bella can be reached at (571) 272 - 7778. 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.
/TOM Y LU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2667