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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 1 recites the limitation “…image of the authentication target person successfully passed…” should read --…image of the authentication target person that has successfully passed…--. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 4 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 4 recites the limitation “…between the query face image and the query feature amount…” should read --… between the query face image or the query feature amount …--. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 5 recites the limitation “…among at least one of the stored past face images and past feature amounts…” should read --… among at least one of the stored past face images or past feature amounts …--. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 4, 11, 12, 14 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Abraham et al. (US 2024/0395071).
In regard to claim 1, Abraham et al. teach an update notification apparatus comprising: at least one memory storing instructions; and at least one processor configured to execute the instructions (paragraphs 99 and 100) to: verify, when authentication performed by verifying a query face image which is a face image of an authentication target person included in an image captured using a camera or a query feature amount extracted from the query face image with a registered face image which is a face image of the authentication target person or a registered feature amount extracted from the registered face image succeeds (paragraph 83, the biometric accuracy is acceptable and fed into a time drift estimator), the query face image or the query feature amount with a past face image which is the query face image of the authentication target person successfully passed the authentication in the past or a past feature amount extracted from the past face image, and calculate a score indicating a matching degree of the verification (elements 117, 118 and paragraph 84. Abraham et al. show comparing the registered biometric ID with a series of previous photos of a user. These photos are input into the time drifting model. The time drifting model is the feature amounts); determine whether to prompt the authentication target person to update the registered image based on the score; and transmit a notification prompting the authentication target person to update the registered image when it is determined to prompt the update of the registered image (the expiration date is communicated to the user and updating is performed).
In regard to claims 2 and 12, Abraham et al. teach wherein the at least one processor is configured to execute the instructions to determine whether the score is equal to or less than a threshold, and when it is determined that the score is equal to or less than the threshold, the at least one processor is configured to execute the instructions to determine to prompt the authentication target person to update the registered image (paragraph 82, issue a notification to the user to update their biometric ID profile).
In regard to claim 4, Abraham et al. teach wherein a plurality of past face images or the past feature amounts are stored (element 118 and paragraph 83, Abraham et al. teach storing features of the user gathered over time. “…compared with a series of time-drifted biometric profiles of the user over time,”), and the at least one processor is configured to execute the instructions to calculate the score between the query face image and the query feature amount and an oldest past face image or the past feature amount among the plurality of past face images or the feature amounts included in the history information as the face image or the past feature amounts (paragraph 83. Abraham et al. show using the past feature amounts to determine the score. The claim does not state using the oldest past feature amounts).
In regard to claim 11, Abraham et al. teach an authentication apparatus comprising: the update notification apparatus according to claim 1,wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions to: acquire a face image of an authentication target person from a captured image acquired from a camera an imaging device that captures an image of the authentication target person (paragraphs 56 and 74); and verify the acquired face image of the authentication target person or a feature amount extracted from the face image with a registered image of a registrant or a feature amount extracted from the registered image to perform authentication with respect to the authentication target person (element 117 and paragraph 83).
Claim 14 is the method corresponding to the apparatus of claim 1 and is rejected for the same reasons as claim 1 above.
In regard to claim 15, Abraham et al. teach all the elements of claim 15 (see claim 1 rejection above), including a non-transitory computer-readable medium that stores a program (paragraphs 99 and 100).
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, 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) 3 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abraham et al. in view of Takashi et al. (JP 2006187387. A machine translation is provided for examination purposes).
In regard to claims 3 and 13, Abraham et al. teach all the elements of claim 3 except history information storage at least one of the face image and the feature amount and the score as history information when the authentication target person succeeds in authentication (Abraham et al. teach storing a previous time drifting model but does not specifically teach storing the image and score history).
Takashi et al. teach history information storage at least one of the face image and the feature amount and the score as history information when the authentication target person succeeds in authentication (fig. 2 and page 6. The biometric information storage unit stores the biometric pattern, date, coincidence, etc.).
The two are analogous art because they both deal with the same field of invention of biometric authentication.
Before the effective filing date it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the apparatus of Abraham et al. with the image storage of Takashi et al. The rationale is as follows: Before the effective filing date it would have been obvious to provide the apparatus of Abraham et al. with the image storage of Takashi et al. because storing the information, as shown in Takashi et al., would allow for updating of the device and would maintain accuracy while the person is aging.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abraham et al. in view of Tieu (US 2018/0004924).
In regard to claim 9, Abraham et al. teach all the elements of claim 9 except wherein the at least one processor is configured to execute the instructions to: store the calculated score as a past score when the authentication target person succeeds in authentication, determine whether degree of the verification is decreased based on the stored past score and the calculated score, and when it is determined that the degree of the verification is decreased, determine to prompt the authentication target person to register the registered image.
Tieu teaches wherein the at least one processor is configured to execute the instructions to: store the calculated score as a past score when the authentication target person succeeds in authentication (fig. 4 elements 404, 410 and paragraph 49. Tieu teaches comparing the first and second scores which means the first score is stored), determine whether degree of the verification is decreased based on the stored past score and the calculated score, and when it is determined that the degree of the verification is decreased, determine to prompt the authentication target person to register the registered image (fig. 4 element 412).
The two are analogous art because they both deal with the same field of invention of biometric authentication.
Before the effective filing date it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the apparatus of Abraham et al. with the score verification of Tieu. The rationale is as follows: Before the effective filing date it would have been obvious to provide the apparatus of Abraham et al. with the score verification of Tieu because the device of Tieu would work equally as well in the apparatus of Abraham et al. as it does separately. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the score comparison of Tieu would provide predictable results and would allow for accurate user authentication.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 8/7/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues on page 11 that Abraham et al. fail to teach a score calculated based on the face image used in a past successful authentication and the current face image. The claim also states the score can also be calculated based on a current feature amount and past feature amount. The time drifting profile of Abraham et al. is a feature amount. It is based on past images of the user.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-8 and 10 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: In regard to claims 5-8, the prior art fails to teach or make obvious classifying the images based on the face state in combination with the claim’s other features.
In regard to claim 10, the prior art fails to teach or make obvious “whether to store at least one of the query face image and the query feature amount as at least one of the past face image and the past feature amount information based on the face state in the query face image” in combination with the claim’s other features.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 JOSEPH R HALEY whose telephone number is (571)272-0574. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30am-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, Amr Awad can be reached at 571-272-7764. 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.
/JOSEPH R HALEY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2621
Prosecution Insights