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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 18-20 (Group III) withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 08/28/2026 with regards to Groups I and II. The traverse is persuasive. Claims 1-8 and 9-17 are hereby rejoined.
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 7 and 8 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 7 recites the limitation " wherein said second focal length" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It appears that claim 7 should depend from claim 3 not 2.
Claim 8 states that a “magnification factor” is at least four percent greater than “the second level”. It is unclear whether “the second level” means the second distortion level, a second magnification level, or a corresponding magnification factors. Moreover, the limitation “the second level” has insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It appears that claim 8 should depend from claim 3 not 2.
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.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1, 5, 6, 9-11, 13, 15, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Adam (US 20060050933) in view of Carter (US 20190065846).
Regarding claim 1:
Adam discloses: a method of identifying a person using multimodal biometrics (Adam discloses identifying a person using facial and iris recognition from a common image (¶¶ 0003, 0017-0018, and FIG. 1));
comprising: providing a camera assembly having a single imaging camera (Adam teaches camera acquisition and single sensor biometric procession (¶¶ 0016-0017)),
wherein said camera assembly produces an image having a first area and an second area (Adam teaches acquiring a single image of a face and processes different portions of that image through facial, skin texture, and iris analysis channels (¶ 0018 and FIG. 1). Under BRI, the area containing they wyes corresponds to a first area, and the another area containing facial landmarks corresponds to a second area (¶¶ 0013, 0020, 0031-0032, and FIG. 3));
imaging a face having eyes and facial features with said camera assembly (Adam acquires an image of a face, locates the face and its facial features, and detects facial feature locations including the pupils (¶¶ 0018,-0020; FIGS. 1 and 3)),
obtaining iris pattern data from said eyes imaged in said first area of said image (Adam locates the pupils and surrounding irises and applies iris scanning and iris recognition techniques to analyze the iris patterns (¶¶0035-0036, FIG. 1, iris analysis channel 24));
obtaining facial feature data from said facial features imaged in said second area of said image (Adam detects and tracks facial feature locations and obtains feature information corresponding to facial landmarks such as eye corners and the tip of the nose (¶¶ 0020-0021, 0031-0032, FIGS. 1 and 3));
comparing said iris pattern data and said facial feature data to at least one identification database to identify said person (Adam compares the located facial features with corresponding values from face images in database 27, compares iris features with iris characteristics of a reference image, and integrates the facial and iris comparison results into a similarity score used to recognize the person or determine that the person is not present in the database (¶¶ 0003, 0018, 0041-0042, and FIG. 1)).
Adam does not explicitly teach a camera assembly having an imaging lens; wherein said imaging lens produces a first level of distortion in said first area and a different second level of distortion in said second area; and wherein said eyes are in said first area of said image and at least some of said facial features are in said second area of said image.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Carter teaches: teach a camera assembly having an imaging lens; and wherein said imaging lens produces a first level of distortion in said first area and a different second level of distortion in said second area (Carter teaches a biometric camera having an imaging lens 222 and an image sensor 233 for acquiring a biometric image (¶¶ 0057-0058; FIG. 2A). Carter further teaches introducing positive optical distortion in other portions of the lens (¶ 0054));
wherein said eyes are in said first area of said image and at least some of said facial features are in said second area of said image (Carter also teaches configuring the imaging lens so that selected portions of the image in which both eyes or irises are expected to be located are locally distorted to increase the number of sensor pixels mapped to each iris (¶ 0063, FIG. 2C-2D). Carter explains that the distortion and corresponding pixel distribution vary across different portions of the face (¶¶ 0054, 0064, and FIG. 2D)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Adam’s single camera to incorporate the teachings of Carter by including selectively distorting imaging lens and positioning the subject relative to the camera such that both eyes are located in a first area, and at least some non-eye facial feature located in a second area having different level of distortion in order to locally increase the sampling of iris regions to improve the biometric imaging system.
Regarding claim 5:
Carter further teaches: wherein said imaging lens contains a single lens element that produces both said first level of distortion and said second level of distortion (Carter teaches different distortion levels in different portions of a lens and describes the lens as a solid piece (¶ 0054). Carter further teaches one optical element (¶ 0057)).
Regarding claim 6:
Carter further teaches: wherein said imaging lens contains multiple lens elements that produces both said first area of distortion and said second level of distortion (Carter teaches multiple lenses or optical elements integrated or arranged as an optical assembly (¶ 0057). The assembly produces spatial different distortion levels (¶ 0054)).
Regarding claim 9:
Adam discloses: A method of identifying a person using multimodal biometrics (Adam discloses identifying a person using facial and iris recognition from a common image (¶¶ 0003, 0017-0018, and FIG. 1));
comprising: providing a single imaging camera (Adam teaches camera acquisition and single sensor biometric procession (¶¶ 0016-00117)),
that produces an image having a first area and a second area (Adam teaches acquiring a single image of a face and processes different portions of that image through facial, skin texture, and iris analysis channels (¶ 0018 and FIG. 1). Under BRI, the area containing they eyes corresponds to a first area, and the another area containing facial landmarks corresponds to a second area (¶¶ 0013, 0020, 0031-0032, and FIG. 3));
imaging a person having facial features and iris patterns with said imaging camera (Adam acquires an image of a face, locates the face and its facial features, and detects facial feature locations including the pupils (¶¶ 0018-0020, 0035-0036; FIGS. 1 and 3)),
obtaining iris pattern data from said iris patterns that are imaged (Adam locates the pupils and surrounding irises and applies iris scanning and iris recognition techniques to analyze the iris patterns (¶¶0035-0036, FIG. 1, iris analysis channel 24));
comparing said iris pattern data to at least one identification database to identify said person (Adam compares the located facial features with corresponding values from face images in database 27, compares iris features with iris characteristics of a reference image, and integrates the facial and iris comparison results into a similarity score used to recognize the person or determine that the person is not present in the database (¶¶ 0003, 0018, 0041-0042, and FIG. 1)).
Adam does not explicitly teach a single imaging camera with an imaging lens; wherein said first area is distorted with a first level of magnification; and wherein said iris patterns are imaged in said first area.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Carter teaches: a single imaging camera with an imaging lens (Carter teaches a biometric camera having an imaging lens 222 and an image sensor 233 for acquiring a biometric image (¶¶ 0057-0058; FIG. 2A). Carter further teaches introducing positive optical distortion in other portions of the lens (¶ 0054));
wherein said first area is distorted with a first level of magnification (Carter teaches that the local shape or refractive index characteristics of the lens cause iris containing portions of the image to be locally stretched or magnified over a greater number of sensor pixels, thereby increasing the captured iris detail and pixels per iris value (¶¶ 0055-0056));
wherein said iris patterns are imaged in said first area (Carter also teaches configuring the imaging lens so that selected portions of the image in which both eyes or irises are expected to be located are locally distorted to increase the number of sensor pixels mapped to each iris (¶ 0063, FIG. 2C-2D)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Adam’s single camera to incorporate the teachings of Carter by including selectively distorting imaging lens and positioning the subject relative to the camera such that both eyes are located in a first area, and at least some non-eye facial feature located in a second area having different level of distortion in order to locally increase the sampling of iris regions to improve the biometric imaging system.
Regarding claim 10:
wherein imaging said person includes imaging at least some of said facial features in said second area of said image (Carter teaches placing the eyes in the selectively magnified first area (¶ 0063). Therefore, it is implied that other facial landmarks are in the second area. Adam also identifies other facial landmarks in the remaining second area (¶¶ 0020 and 0031)).
Regarding claim 11:
obtaining facial feature data from said second area of said image and comparing said facial feature data to said at least one identification database to identify said person (Adam teaches obtaining facial feature data and comparing it with database 27 (¶¶ 0018, 0020-0021, and 0031)).
Regarding claim 13:
Carter further teaches: wherein said second area is distorted with a second level of magnification that is less than said first level of magnification (Carter teaches locally magnifying iris containing portions relative to adjacent or non-iris portions (¶ 0055). Carter further applies the increased sampling to the eye region (¶ 0063)).
Regarding claim 15:
Carter further teaches: wherein said imaging lens contains a single lens element that produces both said first level of magnification and said second level of magnification (Carter describes locally different optical treatment in a lens that may be manufactured as one solid piece (¶ 0054). Carter further teaches that the resulting different magnification levels (¶ 0055)).
Regarding claim 16:
Carter further teaches: wherein said imaging lens contains multiple lens elements that produces both said first level of magnification and said second level of magnification (Carter teaches multiple integrated optical elements (¶ 0057). Carter further teaches providing the different regional magnification levels (¶¶ 0054-0055)).
Claim(s) 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Adam (US 20060050933) in view of Carter (US 20190065846) and Oshima (JP 2005063342).
Regarding claim 12:
Adam in view of Carter does not specifically teach identifying said person only if said iris pattern data and said facial feature data are matched in said at least one identification database.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Oshima teaches: identifying said person only if said iris pattern data and said facial feature data are matched in said at least one identification database (Oshima teaches “The server 20 collates the received image with the database in which the facial image is registered using the received password as a search key, and the database image in which the iris information is registered, and it is assumed that the user authentication is successful if both match” (¶ 0074)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Adam in view Carter to incorporate the teachings of Oshima by including: identifying said person only if said iris pattern data and said facial feature data are matched in said at least one identification database in order to reduce false acceptance by requiring successful verification from both independent biometric modalities.
Claim(s) 2-4, 7-8, 14, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Adam (US 20060050933) in view of Carter (US 20190065846) and Shibatani (JP 2004272706).
Regarding claim 2:
Adam in view of Carter does not specifically teach wherein said first level of distortion in said first area of said image has a first level of magnification with a first focal length.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Shibatani teaches: wherein said first level of distortion in said first area of said image has a first level of magnification with a first focal length (Shibatani teaches central region is magnified and corresponds to an 80 mm focal length (¶¶ 0047-0048)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Adam in view Carter to incorporate the teachings of Shibatani by including: wherein said first level of distortion in said first area of said image has a first level of magnification with a first focal length in order to generate a high resolution image so the comparison between the captured face image and the image registered in the database is performed with high accuracy.
Regarding claim 3:
Shibatani further teaches: wherein said second level of distortion in said second area of said image has a second level of magnification with a second focal length, wherein said first focal length is greater than said second focal length (Shibatani teaches peripheral region corresponds to a 16 mm focal length; central 80 mm focal length is greater (¶¶ 0047-0048)).
Regarding claim 4:
Shibatani further teaches: wherein said second area of said image surrounds said first area of said image (Shibatani teaches peripheral region surrounds the central region (¶¶ 0006-0007, 0045-0048, FIGS. 3-5)).
Regarding claim 7:
Shibatani further teaches: wherein said second focal length is at least four percent shorter than said first focal length (Shibatani teaches peripheral region corresponds to a 16 mm focal length; central 80 mm focal length is greater (¶¶ 0047-0048)).
Regarding claim 8:
Shibatani further teaches: wherein said first level of distortion has a magnification factor of at least four percent greater than the second level (Shibatani teaches peripheral region is compressed while the central region is enlarged, and the 80/16 focal length relationship is greater than 4% (¶¶ 0047-0048)).
Regarding claim 14:
Shibatani further teaches: wherein said second area of said image surrounds said first area of said image (Shibatani teaches peripheral region surrounds the central region (¶¶ 0006-0007, 0045-0048, FIGS. 3-5)).
Regarding claim 17:
Shibatani further teaches: wherein said first level of magnification has a magnification factor of at least four percent greater than the second level (Shibatani teaches peripheral region is compressed while the central region is enlarged, and the 80/16 focal length relationship is greater than 4% (¶¶ 0047-0048)).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WASSIM MAHROUKA whose telephone number is (571)272-2945. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8:00-5:00 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, 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.
/WASSIM MAHROUKA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2665
