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 communication filed 12/10/25.
Response to Amendment
The examiner acknowledges the amendment of claims 1-3,11,13-15,17, and 19.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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:
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.
Claim(s) 1,4-6,8-9,12-13,16,18, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boenapalli et al. US Patent Application Publication 20190340421 in view of Lawes et al. US Patent Application Publication 2017/0347072.
Regarding claim 1, Boenapalli et al. teaches an electronic device comprising: at least one display (140); at least one light source (115) that can be controlled to project light in a direction away from a surface of the electronic device and whose light intensity can be granularly modified (paragraph 09); at least one camera that captures one or more images within a field of view when a corresponding one of the at least one camera is activated (paragraph 05,024); a memory having stored thereon program code comprising an image recognition authentication (IRA) module (paragraph 021); and a controller (110) communicatively coupled to the at least one display, the at least one light source, the at least one camera, and the memory (fig. 1), and which is configured to cause the electronic device to: detect an unlock trigger event while the electronic device is in a locked state, the unlock trigger event activating the image recognition authentication module which configures the electronic device to perform image recognition to unlock the electronic device (paragraph 020, 027,031); detect a LUX (illumination intensity) value of ambient light in a space in which the electronic device is located; and in response to the LUX value of the ambient light being below a threshold LUX value required to support 2D facial recognition (facial image has at least 2 dimension, paragraph 033): activate a light source among the at least one light source of the electronic device to project light into the field of view of the at least one camera, the projected light increasing the LUX value of light detectable from an image captured within the field of view (paragraph 032-034,039); activate the corresponding one of the at least one camera to capture the image within the field of view; and unlock the electronic device for access by a user, in response to the captured image matching a stored image of an authentication token for the electronic device (fig. 3, paragraph 030,039,040). Boenapalli et al. is silent on teaching gradually increase a luminance of the light source to increase its brightness until an amount of light projected enables capture of the image with sufficient clarity to complete the image recognition for login authentication. Lawes in an analogous art teaches incrementally increasing (gradual increase) a luminance of the light source to increase its brightness until an amount of light projected enables capture of the image with sufficient clarity to complete the image recognition (paragraph 053-054).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of Boenapalli et al. as disclosed by Lawes because such modification represents an improvement over the system of Boenapalli by further controlling the illumination and maintaining the light source at an ideal lux level.
Regarding claim 4, Boenapalli et al. teaches an ambient light sensor (ALS) communicatively coupled to the controller and which performs the detection of the LUX value of the ambient light and transmits the detected LUX (intensity) value to the controller, which performs a comparison with the threshold LUX value (paragraph 034).
Regarding claim 5, Boenapalli et al. teaches the authentication token is an image of a face of an authenticated user, and the captured image is a face of a user attempting to access the electronic device (fig. 3, paragraph 030,039,040)..
Regarding claim 6, Boenapalli et al. teaches a camera controller coupled to the at least one camera, wherein the camera controller is configured to initiate capture of an image within the field of view of the corresponding camera that is activated during a login authentication process that comprises performing recognition of a captured image of a face (fig. 3, paragraph 024,030,039,040).
Regarding claim 8, Boenapalli et al. teaches to detect the unlock trigger event, the controller receives an input from a physical button of the electronic device that is depressed to trigger activation and unlocking of the electronic device (paragraph 024,032).
Regarding claim 9, Boenapalli et al. teaches a movement sensor that detects movement associated with a lift to view of the electronic device, the movement sensor communicatively connected to the controller, wherein the controller detects the unlock trigger event based on receiving input from the movement sensor indicating the electronic device is being moved into a display viewing position (paragraph 026,032).
Regarding claim 12, Boenapalli et al teaches the completion of the capture of the image, reduces a level of the light source back to an initial level from before initiation of the image recognition authentication (paragraph 041).
Regarding claim 13, Boenapalli et al. teaches a method comprising: detecting an unlock trigger event while an electronic device is in a locked state, the unlock trigger event activating an image recognition authentication module which configures the electronic device to perform image recognition to unlock the electronic device (paragraph 032); detecting, using a light sensor, a LUX value (luminous intensity) of ambient light in a space in which the electronic device is located (paragraph 033); and in response to the LUX value of the ambient light being below a threshold LUX value required to support 2D facial recognition: activating a light source of the electronic device to project light into a field of view of at least one camera of the electronic device, the projected light increasing the LUX value of light detectable from an image captured within the field of view (paragraph 032-034,039); activating a first one of the at least one camera to capture the image within the field of view and unlocking the electronic device for access by a user, in response to the captured image matching a stored image of an authentication token for the electronic device (fig. 3, paragraph 030,039,040). Boenapalli et al. is silent on teaching gradually increase a luminance of the light source to increase its brightness until an amount of light projected enables capture of the image with sufficient clarity to complete the image recognition for login authentication. Lawes in an analogous art teaches incrementally increasing (gradual increase) a luminance of the light source to increase its brightness until an amount of light projected enables capture of the image with sufficient clarity to complete the image recognition (paragraph 053-054).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of Boenapalli et al. as disclosed by Lawes because such modification represents an improvement over the system of Boenapalli by further controlling the illumination and maintaining the light source at an ideal lux level.
Regarding claim 16, Boenapalli et al. teaches the authentication token is an image of a face of an authenticated user, and the captured image is a face of a user attempting to access the electronic device, wherein further the method comprises unlocking the electronic device for access by a user, in response to the captured image of the face of the user matching a stored image of the face of the authenticated user (fig. 3, paragraph 030,039,040).
Regarding claim 18, Boenapalli et al teaches the completion of the capture of the image, reduces a level of the light source back to an initial level from before initiation of the image recognition authentication (paragraph 041).
Regarding claim 19, Boenapalli et al. teaches a computer program product comprising: a non-transitory computer readable storage device (paragraph 021-022); and program code on the computer readable storage device that when executed by a controller associated with an electronic device (paragraph 058), the program code configures the controller to cause the electronic device to provide functionality of: detecting an unlock trigger event while an electronic device is in a locked state, the unlock trigger event activating an image recognition authentication module which configures the electronic device to perform image recognition to unlock the electronic device (paragraph 032-033); detecting, using a light sensor, a LUX (luminous intensity) value of ambient light in a space in which the electronic device is located (paragraph 033); and in response to the LUX value of the ambient light being below a threshold LUX value required to support 2D facial recognition: activating a light source of the electronic device to project light into a field of view of at least one camera of the electronic device, the projected light increasing the LUX value of light detectable from an image captured within the field of view (paragraph 032-034,039); activating a first one of the at least one camera to capture the image within the field of view and unlocking the electronic device for access by a user, in response to the captured image matching a stored image of an authentication token for the electronic device (fig. 3, paragraph 030,039,040). Boenapalli et al. is silent on teaching gradually increase a luminance of the light source to increase its brightness until an amount of light projected enables capture of the image with sufficient clarity to complete the image recognition for login authentication. Lawes in an analogous art teaches incrementally increasing (gradual increase) a luminance of the light source to increase its brightness until an amount of light projected enables capture of the image with sufficient clarity to complete the image recognition (paragraph 053-054).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of Boenapalli et al. as disclosed by Lawes because such modification represents an improvement over the system of Boenapalli by further controlling the illumination and maintaining the light source at an ideal lux level.
Claim(s) 2,14, 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boenapalli et al. US Patent Application Publication 20190340421 in view of Lawes et al. US Patent Application Publication 2017/0347072 and further in view of Hsieh et al. US Patent Application Publication 20220199046.
Regarding claim 2,14, Boenapalli et al. is silent on teaching the at least one light source comprises a backlight of a display from among the at least one display. Hsieh et al. in an analogous art teaches at least one light source comprises a backlight of a display from among the at least one display, and the controller activates the backlight at a low luminance level and gradually increases a luminance of the backlight to increase a brightness of the display until an amount of light projected enables capture of the image with sufficient clarity to complete the image recognition for login authentication (paragraph 040).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the system of Boenapalli et al. in view of Laws as disclosed by Hsieh et al because such modification represents the substitution of one form of light source for another and producing the predictable result of illuminating the area for image capture.
Regarding claim 20, Boenapalli et al teaches the controller activates the light source at a low luminance level and gradually increases a luminance of the light source to enable capture of the image with sufficient clarity to complete the image recognition for login authentication (paragraph 032-034,039) but is silent on teaching the at least one light source comprises a backlight of a display from among the at least one display. Hsieh et al. in an analogous art teaches at least one light source comprises a backlight of a display from among the at least one display, and the controller activates the backlight at a low luminance level and gradually increases a luminance of the backlight to increase a brightness of the display until an amount of light projected enables capture of the image with sufficient clarity to complete the image recognition for login authentication (paragraph 040).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the system of Boenapalli et al. as disclosed by Hsieh et al because such modification represents the substitution of one form of light source for another and producing the predictable result of illuminating the area for image capture.
Claim(s) 3,15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boenapalli et al. US Patent Application Publication 20190340421 in view of Lawes et al. US Patent Application Publication 2017/0347072 and further in view of Park et al. US Patent Application Publication 20210385417.
Regarding claim 3,15, Boenapalli et al teaches the controller activates the light source at a low luminance level and gradually increases a luminance of the light source to enable capture of the image with sufficient clarity to complete the image recognition for login authentication (paragraph 032-034,039) but is silent on teaching the light source is a flashlight. Park et al. in an analogous teaches the use of flashlight as a light source for aiding in the capturing of a facial image (paragraph 0359).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the system of Boenapalli et al. in view of Lawes as disclosed by Park et al because such modification represents the substitution of one form of light source for another and producing the predictable result of illuminating the area for image capture.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boenapalli et al. US Patent Application Publication 20190340421 in view of Lawes et al. US Patent Application Publication 2017/0347072 and further in view of Hoang US Patent Application Publication 20160050736.
Regarding claim 7, Boenapalli et al. teaches an ambient light sensor (ALS) communicatively coupled to the controller and which performs the detection of the LUX value of the ambient light and transmits the detected LUX (intensity) value to the controller, which performs a comparison with the threshold LUX value (paragraph 034) but is not explicit in teaching the camera controller: activates a lens of at least a first camera among the at least one camera to operate as a light sensor by opening and receiving an impingement of light from the surrounding space. Hoang in an analogous art teaches the camera controller: activates a lens of at least a first camera among the at least one camera to operate as a light sensor by opening and receiving an impingement of light from the surrounding space (paragraph 032-033,036).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the system of Boenapalli et al. in view of Lawes as disclosed by Hoang because such modification because such modification represents an efficient and reliable means of capturing the facial image for the authentication of the user.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boenapalli et al. US Patent Application Publication 20190340421 in view of Lawes et al. US Patent Application Publication 2017/0347072 and further in view of Wang et al. US Patent Application Publication 20250245429.
Regarding claim 10, Boenapalli et al. is silent on teaching the electronic device is configured as a flip phone having two connected rotatable housings that enable the electronic device to be rotatable into a closed and an open position, and wherein the movement sensor detects rotation of the connected rotatable housings to configured the electronic device into the open position and transmits a signal to the controller that the controller receives as the input indicating the electronic device is being moved into the display viewing position. Wang et al. in an analogous art teaches the electronic device is configured as a flip phone having two connected rotatable housings that enable the electronic device to be rotatable into a closed and an open position, and wherein the movement sensor detects rotation of the connected rotatable housings to configured the electronic device into the open position and transmits a signal to the controller that the controller receives as the input indicating the electronic device is being moved into the display viewing position (paragraph 0109-0110).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the system of Boenapalli et al. in view of Lawes as disclosed by Wang et al. because such modification represents the substitution of non-flip phone for a flip phone and providing a predictable result of a reliable mobile phone.
Claim(s) 11,17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boenapalli et al. US Patent Application Publication 20190340421 in view of Lawes et al. US Patent Application Publication 2017/0347072 and further in view of Shoemake et al. US Patent Application Publication 20170146890.
Regarding claim 11,17, Boenapalli et al. teaches the device include a front camera and front light (paragraph 026-027, fig.2) and teaches the controller activates the light source at a low luminance level and gradually increases a luminance of the light source to enable capture of the image with sufficient clarity to complete the image recognition for login authentication (paragraph 032-034,039) but is silent on teaching the at least one light source comprises at least one front light source and at least one back light source. Shoemake et al. in an analogous art teaches the at least one light source comprises at least one front light source and at least one back light source and also teaches selecting a light source that faces a location of the user holding the electronic device (paragraph 0172).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the system of Boenapalli et al. in view of Lawes as disclosed by Shoemake et al. because such modification represents an improvement over the system of Boenapalli et al. in order to capture an image for the reliable authentication of the user through facial image recognition.
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 VERNAL U BROWN whose telephone number is (571)272-3060. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8AM-5PM, EST.
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, Steven Lim can be reached at 571 270 1210. 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.
/VERNAL U BROWN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2686