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
The IDS documents filed 9/13/2024, 7/7/2025 and 8/19/2025 were received and considered.
Claims 1-19 are pending.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
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.
Claim 7 is 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.
Regarding claim 7, the limitation “the processor that changes” lacks sufficient antecedent basis.
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 1, 13 and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2006/0120569 A1 to Kim et al. (Kim), in view of US 2018/0232607 A1 to Zhong et al. (Zhong).
Regarding claim 1, Kim discloses an information processing apparatus (user recognizing system, ¶24) comprising: a camera (image input unit 100 may input a camera image, obtained by a camera, into a computer and form a bit-map pattern by digitalizing the camera image, ¶25) that captures a target (user, ¶25) at a capturing angle (tilt angle θ2, ¶50) and generates an image (digitalizing the camera image, ¶25); and a unit that estimates height information of a predetermined part of the target (user height H can be obtained by combining Equation 2 and Equation 3, ¶57; pixel-scale distances Pl and P2 can be obtained by extracting a silhouette from the image information, and then the distances Pl and P2 are respectively measured from the crown of the head of the silhouette to the vertical center and from the vertical center to the base as shown in FIG. 4, ¶51) based on the image and the capturing angle (based on silhouette, ¶51 and tilt angle, ¶50). Kim is silent regarding a processor performing the estimating. However, Zhong, in an analogous art (control unit used for target detection, ¶73), teaches that it was known to utilize a processor (general purpose microprocessor, digital signal processor or microcontroller, application specific integrated circuit (ASIC), ¶75) executing instructions (sequences of computer program instructions to perform various processes associated with control unit, ¶75) store on a non-transitory storage medium (instructions may be loaded into RAM for execution by processor from read-only memory, or from storage; storage may include any appropriate type of mass storage; storage may include one or more hard disk devices, optical disk devices, flash disks, or other storage devices to provide storage space, ¶75). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kim such that a processor executing instructions stored on a non-transitory storage medium performs the functions of the user recognizing system. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform such a modification to utilize a known manner of automating processes, as taught by Zhong.
Regarding claim 13, Kim discloses wherein the predetermined part is any one of a vertex, eyes, a nose, ears, a mouth, and a jaw (vertex; distances Pl and P2 are respectively measured from the crown of the head of the silhouette to the vertical center and from the vertical center to the base as shown in FIG. 4, ¶51).
Regarding claim 17, Kim discloses wherein the capturing angle is an angle of an optical axis of the camera with respect to a horizontal plane (tilt angle θ2, ¶50, Fig. 5).
Regarding claim 18, the claim is similar in scope to claim 1 and is therefore rejected using a similar rationale.
Regarding claim 19, the claim is similar in scope to claim 1 and is therefore rejected using a similar rationale.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim and Zhong, as applied to claim 1, in view of US 2024/0371207 A1 to Liao et al. (Liao).
Regarding claim 2, Kim discloses detecting and basing calculations on a capturing angle of a camera rotation (Figs. 4-5), but lacks wherein the capturing angle is adjustable by a rotating the camera. However, Liao, in an analogous art (facial recognition), teaches that it was known to adjust a camera rotation angle to better capture an image (if the camera apparatus is, for example, a camera apparatus that can be lifted and/or rotated, a height and/or a rotation angle of the camera apparatus may be adjusted, to capture an image at a better image shooting angle, ¶128). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify Kim such that the capturing angle is adjustable by a rotating the camera. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform such a modification to better capture the image of the target, as taught by Liao.
Claim 4-6 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim and Zhong, as applied to claim 1, in view of US 2004/0088584 A1 to Shachar et al. (Shachar).
Regarding claim 4, Kim, as modified, teaches wherein the processor estimates the height information based on the distance (distant D from camera to image plane, ¶46), the capturing angle (based on silhouette, ¶51 and tilt angle, ¶50), and a position of the predetermined part in the image (user height H can be obtained by combining Equation 2 and Equation 3, ¶57; pixel-scale distances Pl and P2 can be obtained by extracting a silhouette from the image information, and then the distances Pl and P2 are respectively measured from the crown of the head of the silhouette to the vertical center and from the vertical center to the base as shown in FIG. 4, ¶51), but lacks a sensor that senses a distance from the target to the camera. However, Shachar, in an analogous art (biometric capture and authentication), teaches that it was known to calculate the height of an object using a distance to the object (¶39) and teaches that the distance can be acquired using a range detector, such as a laser (¶47). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify Kim to include a sensor that senses a distance from the target to the camera. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform such a modification to utilize a known method of acquiring the distance, as taught by Shachar.
Regarding claim 5, wherein the position of the predetermined part is determined based on an intra- image distance from a center point in the image (user height H can be obtained by combining Equation 2 and Equation 3, ¶57; pixel-scale distances Pl and P2 can be obtained by extracting a silhouette from the image information, and then the distances Pl and P2 are respectively measured from the crown of the head of the silhouette to the vertical center and from the vertical center to the base as shown in FIG. 4, ¶51).
Regarding claim 6, Kim, as modified, teaches a memory (database 400) that stores registered images of registrants (the first feature recognizing unit 210 compares the extracted face feature information with the registered face feature information, which the user information database 400 stores and registers for the respective users of a predetermined group, ¶31) and the registered height information of the registrants (user information database 400 stores the calculated height and compares the same with the registered height information of the registered user group, ¶32); wherein the processor that performs a first biometric authentication using the registered images and the image (the first feature recognizing unit 210 compares the extracted face feature information with the registered face feature information, ¶31), and a second biometric authentication using the registered height information and the height information (compares the calculated height with the registered height information of the registered user group, ¶32).
Regarding claim 8, Kim, as modified, teaches wherein the registered images are registered face images of the registrants (the first features involve unique biometric feature information, such as face information, ¶28; the user information database stores and registers for the respective users of a predetermined group, ¶31); wherein the camera generates the image including a face image of the target (target face image to be authenticated among the image data obtained from the image input unit, ¶31); and wherein the processor performs face authentication using the face image and the registered face image as the first biometric authentication (the first feature recognizing unit compares the extracted face feature information with the registered face feature information, which the user information database stores and registers for the respective users of a predetermined group, ¶31).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim, Zhong and Shachar, as applied to claim 4, in view of US 2017/0103276 A1 to Rauhala et al. (Rauhala) and US 2019/0242983 A1 to Yokota et al. (Yokota).
Regarding claim 3, Kim, as modified, lacks a mirror that reflects light incident from the target toward the camera, wherein the capturing angle is adjustable by a rotating the mirror. However, Rauhala, in an analogous art (capturing physical features for biometric recognition), teaches that it was known to capture biometric data with a camera equipped with a mirror, wherein the capturing angle (optical access) is adjustable by a rotating the mirror (¶62). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify Kim to include in the image input unit/camera a mirror, wherein the capturing angle is adjustable by a rotating the mirror. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform such a modification to utilize a known method of adjusting a camera angle, as taught by Rauhala. As modified, Kim is silent regarding the mirror reflecting light incident from the target toward the camera. However, Yokota teaches a rotating mirror for detecting a target object, where the mirror explicitly reflects light incident from the target toward the camera. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify Kim such that the mirror serves to reflect light incident from the target toward the camera. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform such a modification to utilize known image capture hardware to direct an image toward a sensor, as taught by Yokota.1
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim, Zhong and Shachar, as applied to claim 6, in view of US 2020/0125834 A1 to Zhou et al. (Zhou).
Regarding claim 7, Kim, as modified, lacks wherein the processor changes a threshold in at least one of the first biometric authentication and the second biometric authentication based on the distance. However, Zhou teaches acquiring a distance between an authentication terminal and a user through a proximity sensor (¶45) and, based on the distance, adjusting a threshold for authentication (¶¶46-47) to more accurately determine whether the detected value reaches the threshold (¶46, ¶62, ¶98). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify Kim such that the processor changes a threshold in at least one of the first biometric authentication and the second biometric authentication based on the distance. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform such a modification to more accurately match the target based on the likely accuracy at a particular distance, as taught by Zhou.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim, Zhong and Shachar, as applied to claim 6, in view of US 2020/0050877 A1 to Li.
Regarding claim 9, Kim, as modified, teaches wherein the registered images are registered face images of the registrants (the first features involve unique biometric feature information, such as face information, ¶28; the user information database stores and registers for the respective users of a predetermined group, ¶31); wherein the camera generates the image including a face image of the target (target face image to be authenticated among the image data obtained from the image input unit, ¶31); and wherein the processor performs face authentication using the face image and the registered face image as the first biometric authentication (the first feature recognizing unit compares the extracted face feature information with the registered face feature information, which the user information database stores and registers for the respective users of a predetermined group, ¶31). As modified, Kim lacks registered iris images of the registrants and a second camera that generates the iris image of the target, and performing iris authentication using the iris image and the registered iris images. However, Li teaches that it was known to verify a target object by combining a face image with at least one iris feature to better identify a user (¶58), including acquiring by one or multiple cameras a face image and an iris image (¶30) and comparing the face image and iris image with respective libraries of registrants (¶61). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify Kim to include registered iris images of the registrants and a second camera that generates the iris image of the target, and such that the processor performs iris authentication using the iris image and the registered iris images in addition to facial recognition. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform such a modification to better identify the user, as taught by Li.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim, Zhong and Shachar, as applied to claim 6, in view of KR 20180100890 A to Ahn Jae Min et al. (Ahn Jae Min).
Regarding claim 10, Kim, as modified, lacks wherein the capturing angle is adjusted according to the distance. However, Ahn Jae Min teaches that it was known to track an approaching user (original publication image, p. 13, Fig. 1) by adjusting a tilt motor of a camera (¶23; see also p. 16, Fig. 6). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify Kim such that the capturing angle is adjusted according to the distance. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform such a modification to keep the target in view, as taught by Ahn Jae Min.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim and Zhong, as applied to claim 1, in view of Ahn Jae Min and US 2015/0135308 A1 to Smith et al. (Smith).
Regarding claim 14, Kim, as modified, lacks wherein the processor estimates the height information again in response to changing the capturing angle after estimating the height information. However, Ahn Jae Min teaches that it was known to track an approaching user (original publication image, p. 13, Fig. 1) by adjusting a tilt motor of a camera (¶23; see also p. 16, Fig. 6). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify Kim such that the capturing angle is adjusted according to the target moving. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform such a modification to keep the target in view, as taught by Ahn Jae Min. Further, Smith teaches a dynamic user tracking and recognition system, where it was known to re-recognize users (¶21) as they move around (¶33, ¶38) to avoid misrecognition (¶4). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify Kim such that the processor estimates the height information again (perform re-recognition, per Smith) in response to changing the capturing angle (camera angle changing in response to user moving, per Ahn Jae Min) after estimating the height information (initial or previous recognition). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform such a modification to ensure the user is properly authenticated in a dynamic environment, as taught by Smith.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim and Zhong, as applied to claim 1, in view of “View-invariant estimation of height and stride for gait recognition” by BenAbdelkader et al. (BenAbdelkader).
Regarding claim 15, Kim, as modified, lacks wherein the processor estimates a gait of the target based on a time change of the height information. However, BenAbdelkader teaches that it was known to utilize gait to validate identity (§1, ¶1) by tracking the time-variation of a person’s apparent height (§1, ¶3; see also §3.3). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify Kim such that the processor estimates a gait of the target based on a time change of the height information. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform such a modification to utilize gait as a factor in user authentication, as taught by BenAbdelkader.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim and Zhong, as applied to claim 1, in view of “Radar-based human gait recognition in cane-assisted walks” by Seifert et al. (Seifert) and BenAbdelkader.
Regarding claim 16, Kim, as modified, lacks wherein the processor estimates, based on a time change of the height information, an article that the target is using for moving. However, Seifert teaches that gait analysis (stride, including cadence, p. 1430, §B)can be used to determine whether a user is using a mobility assistive device to move (p. 1429, §II and p. 1431, §III A). Further, BenAbdelkader teaches that it was known to utilize gait to validate identity (§1, ¶1) by tracking the time-variation of a person’s apparent height (§1, ¶3; see also §3.3). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify Kim such that the processor estimates, based on a time change of the height information (determining unique gait, per BenAbdelkader), an article that the target is using for moving (detecting known gait-related characteristics indicating an article that a user is using for moving, per Seifert. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform such a modification to detect whether a user is using a wheelchair, as taught by BenAbdelkader and Seifert.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 11-12 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 a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The prior art teaches centering a camera at a user for verification (for example US 2006/0120569 A1 to Kim et al., Fig. 4, KR 20180100890 A to AHN JAE MIN et al., Fig. 1).
However, the prior art – individually, or in a reasonable combination – fails to teach wherein the camera performs a capturing process by a first capturing angle in which the center of the image is set to the face of the target in response to the distance being not less than a predetermined threshold, and performs a capturing process by a second capturing angle in which the center of the image is set to the top of the head of the target in response to the distance being less than the threshold (claim 11) or wherein the camera performs a capturing process by a first capturing angle for setting the center of the image to the face of the target in response to the distance beingless than a predetermined threshold, and performs a capturing process by a second capturing angle for setting the center of the image to the vertex of the target in response to the distance being greater than or equal to the threshold (claim 12), in combination with the independent and intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
“A vision-based user authentication system in robot environments by using semi-biometrics and tracking” (Kim, Do-Hyung, et al.) teaches semi-biometrics, such as body height (abstract).
KR 20180088346 A (PARK KEUN et al.) teaches tilting a camera as a user approaches a door lock.
WO 2021157918 A1 (LEE, KANGMIN et al.) teaches acquiring height information of a person using the distance measured using a distance measuring sensor and an angle of view measured using a camera.
US 20060093190 A1 (Cheng; Ken Prayoon et al.) teaches biometric authentication, in part based on user height (¶42).
US 7330566 B2 (Cutler; Ross G.) teaches acquiring a sequence of images to capture a person’s gait and identifying the user based on the gait (abstract).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL J SIMITOSKI whose telephone number is (571)272-3841. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 7:00-3:00.
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, Carl Colin can be reached at 571-272-3862. 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.
/Michael Simitoski/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2493
June 23, 2026
1 US 20230367857 A1 (Haller; Martin et al.) describes alternative forms of imaging, including using a mirror to reflect a target image (Fig. 1B).
Prosecution Insights