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 communication is a non-Final office action in merits. Claims 1-20, as originally filed, are presently pending and have been elected and considered below.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 8/21/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. JP2023-159186, filed on 09/22/2023.
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 1-2, 4, 12, 14 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 recites: “perform calculation based on a comparison between the first image and the second image; and acquire, from the second image, a data that is used in the next and subsequent calculation in response to the calculation not being successful,” Claim limitation is ambiguous and unclear in 1) the claim limitation does not expressly specify what calculation being performed, and 2) subsequently, how to characterize or determine the calculation not being successful.
Furthermore, “the next and subsequent calculation” is lack of antecedent basis. Claim 1 therefore renders indefinite.
Claims 2 and 14 also recite “the next and subsequent calculation” which are also lack of antecedent basis.
Claim 4 recites: “wherein the controller performs, in response to the existence of the first information, the face authentication based on a comparison between a processed authentication face image…” in which “the existence of the first information” in lack of antecedent basis. Claim 14 is rejected with the same reason.
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.
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.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2023/0394127 A1, Tussy et al. (hereinafter Tussy).
As to claim 1, Tussy discloses a computer networking apparatus including a controller configured to:
acquire a data of a user of a vehicle (Figs 5, 8; pars 0006-0007, obtain user’s biometric information including image information);
acquire a first image that is associated with the data of the user Figs 5, 8; pars 0006-0007, obtain user’s biometric information including image information);
acquire a second image that is generated by photographing the user of the vehicle with a camera disposed outside the vehicle (Fig 24; pars 0005-0007, 0013-0014. Obtain one or more images captured from a camera outside the vehicle);
perform calculation based on a comparison between the first image and the second image (Figs 9, 17; pars 0007, 0014, 0017, 0021, compare first and second authentication biometric information including images for an authentication operation); and
acquire, from the second image, a data that is used in the next and subsequent calculation in response to the calculation not being successful (pars 0031, 0033, 0037, update biometric information based on whether second biometric information (image) matches the first one within a threshold level). Although Tussy may have disclosed above limitations in one or more embodiments, consider Tussy’s teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of skill in the art before the filing date of invention to incorporate Tussy’s teachings together to provide predictable authentication performance using user’s biometric information including facial images.
As to claim 2, Tussy discloses an information processing apparatus including a controller configured to:
acquire user identification information that is identification information of a user of a vehicle (Figs 16-17; pars 0092, 0095, 0137, obtain user identification information of the user of the vehicle);
acquire an authentication face image that is an image associated with the user identification information and is an image of a face for authentication of the user of the vehicle (Figs 3-5, 8-9; pars 0007, 0025, 0082, 0087-0090, 0092, 0094-0097, 0107, obtaining facial image of the user of the vehicle for user authentication);
acquire a user’s face image that is an image generated by photographing the user of the vehicle with a camera disposed outside the vehicle (Figs 3-5, 8-9; pars 0007, 0025, 0082, 0087-0090, 0092, 0094-0097, 0107, the images including user’s facial image stored in the authentication system and the image captured by a camera outside of the vehicle);
perform face authentication based on a comparison between the authentication face image and the user’s face image (Figs 8-9, 17; pars 0007, 0014, 0017, 0021-0022, 0024-0025, 0028, 0036, 0044, 0048, 0052, perform authentication process by comparing user’s biometric information/images including facial images for facial recognition); and
acquire, from the user’s face image, first information that is information to be used in the next and subsequent face authentications in response to the face authentication not being successful (pars 0031, 0033, 0037, 0296, 0333-0334, 0336, update biometric information from the captured facial image if the comparison indicates the second biometric information (image) not matching the first one within a threshold level). Although Tussy may have disclosed above limitations in one or more embodiments, consider Tussy’s teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of skill in the art before the filing date of invention to incorporate Tussy’s teachings together to provide predictable authentication performance using user’s biometric information including facial images.
As to claim 3, Tussy discloses the information processing apparatus according to claim 2, wherein the controller performs a second authentication other than the face authentication in response to the face authentication not being successful (Fig 4; pars 0142-0144, if facial authentication fails, second or alternative authentication method such as user name/password may be used for authentication), and acquires the first information from the user’s face image in response to the second authentication being successful (pars 0006, 0021, 0024, 0037 store/acquire the user biometric information as part of biometric profile of the user upon successful authentication).
As to claim 4, Tussy discloses the information processing apparatus according to claim 2, wherein the controller performs, in response to the existence of the first information, the face authentication based on a comparison between a processed authentication face image, which is the authentication face image reflecting the first information, and the user's face image (Figs 9, 17; pars 0007, 0017, 0021, facial authentication by comparison of biometric/facial images. Existing first information being the one stored in the system/root/server).
As to claim 5, Tussy discloses the information processing apparatus according to claim 4, wherein the controller generates the processed authentication face image by processing the authentication face image in accordance with the first information (Fig 24, processed facial image with different brightens; pars 0006-0009, 0021, 0023, 0030).
As to claim 6, Tussy discloses the information processing apparatus according to claim 2, wherein the controller stores the first information in a memory so as to be usable for face authentication when the user uses the vehicle (pars 0006, 0021, 0024, 0037 store/acquire the user biometric information as part of biometric profile of the user upon successful authentication).
As to claim 7, Tussy discloses the information processing apparatus according to claim 2, wherein the first information includes at least one of information depending on an attribute of a first user, information depending on an attribute of a first vehicle, and information depending on an attribute of a first system that performs the face authentication (pars 0008, 0011, 0179).
As to claim 8, Tussy discloses the information processing apparatus according to claim 7, wherein the controller stores the first information in a memory so as to be usable for face authentication of the first user, in response to the fact that the first information includes the information depending on an attribute of the first user (pars 0011, 0087, 0156).
As to claim 9, Tussy discloses the information processing apparatus according to claim 7, wherein the controller stores the first information in a memory so as to be usable for face authentication of a second user of a second vehicle having the same attribute as that of the first vehicle, in response to the fact that the first information includes the information depending on an attribute of the first vehicle (Figs 16-18; pars 0260-0273, a facial authentication system (e.g. DMV) with facial images store in a root server for authentication of multiple users based on their individual profiles/attributes).
As to claim 10, Tussy discloses the information processing apparatus according to claim 7, wherein the controller stores the first information in a memory so as to be usable for face authentication of a second user in a second system that performs the same face authentication as in the first system, in response to the fact that the first information includes the information depending on an attribute of the first system (Figs 16-18; pars 0260-0273, a facial authentication system (e.g. DMV) with facial images store in a root server for authentication of multiple users).
As to claim 11, Tussy discloses the information processing apparatus according to claim 3, wherein the controller acquires, in response to performing the second authentication, the face image of the user again after the face authentication is not successful and before the second authentication is completed (pars 0142-0145, 0160, 0230, additional facial image of the user may be obtained for security reason).
As to claim 12, it is a method claim necessitated claim 2. Rejection of claim 2 is therefore incorporated herein.
As to claims 13-19, they are rejected with the same reason as set forth in claims 3-9, respectively.
As to claim 20, it is rejected with the same reason as set forth in claims 10-11.
Examiner’s Note
Examiner has cited particular column, line number, paragraphs and/or figure(s) in the reference(s) as applied to the claims for the convenience of the Applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant in preparing responses, to fully consider the reference(s) in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to QUN SHEN whose telephone number is (571)270-7927. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri 8:30-5:50 PT.
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, Amandeep Saini can be reached on 571-272-3382. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/QUN SHEN/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2662
Prosecution Insights