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 .
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit as a 371 of international application PCT/JP2022/014511 is acknowledged.
Preliminary Amendment
The preliminary amendment to the specification, drawings, and claims filed on 17 September 2024 is accepted and entered.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 17 September 2024 and 30 June 2025 were received and the information disclosure statement has been considered by the examiner.
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.
The following title is suggested: An Apparatus and Method to Extract a Pattern from Information on a Skin and to Generate a Corrected Pattern Image by Combination
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 6, and 9 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 last line, "the singular area pattern extracted" should read "the extracted singular area pattern"
Claim 6 line 5, delete the commas so line 5 reads "pattern with the corresponding feature point when the feature point included in the" so that it is clear that the associating is performed between the singular area information and the corresponding feature point
Claim 9 line 9, the comma at the end of the line should be deleted so that the difference between the scores is not separated from the omit step
Appropriate correction is required.
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 5-9 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.
Regarding claim 5, it is unclear what the "higher reliability" is being added to and what the "reliability" is used for. Is the higher reliability added to an existing item such as the singular area pattern or some other item? Is the reliability used to determine an accuracy of the singular area pattern or some other item? Therefore, the scope of the claim is unclear. For the purpose of examination, the examiner understands the claim to add higher reliability to a feature point for performing registration when a degree of recess of the feature point is shallower than that in surrounding of the singular area. Claim 7 depends on claim 5 and is rejected for failing to remedy the ambiguity of claim 5.
Regarding claim 6, claim 6 recites the limitation "the corresponding feature point" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Therefore, it is unclear what feature point is being referred to and if it is the same or separate from the feature point introduced in line 4. For the purpose of examination, the examiner interprets the "corresponding feature point" as a new item, i.e. "a corresponding feature point". Claim 8 depends on claim 6 and is rejected for failing to remedy the ambiguity of claim 6.
Regarding claim 9, claim 9 recites the limitation "the combined method image" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Therefore, it is unclear what the combined method image is. For the purpose of examination, the examiner interprets the word "method" to be deleted such that it reads "the combined
Further regarding claim 9, claim 9 recites two "a registration pattern image registered in advance" in lines 5-6 and line 8. It is unclear whether these are the same item or if they are separate items. For the purpose of examination, the examiner interprets them as the same item, i.e. line 8 to read "[[a]]the registration pattern image registered in advance".
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 1-4, 6, and 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Satou et al. (US 20180089484 A1; hereafter, Satou) in view of He et al. (US 20190303639 A1; hereafter, He).
Regarding claim 1, Satou discloses:
An information processing apparatus comprising: at least one memory that is configured to store instructions ([0208] a memory may store a program which is understood as instructions);
and at least one processor that is configured to execute the instructions ([0208] a computer may execute the process which is understood to include at least one processor) to:
extract a pattern from the three-dimensional information ([0183] a first polygon is detected which may be understood as a pattern as it follows an expected and predicted arrangement) and detect a singular area of the pattern ([0180] a line C is detected which is a particular part of the pattern and may be understood as a singular area );
extract a singular area pattern of the singular area ([0184] a second polygon is detected which borders line C, the singular area, and is therefore understood as a pattern of the singular area);
generate a combined pattern image in which the pattern and the singular area pattern are combined ([0183]-[0185] the first and second polygons, pattern and singular area pattern respectively, are combined to generate a combined pattern image), on the basis of the pattern extracted from the three-dimensional information and the singular area pattern extracted ([0186] "the repair unit 214 mutually replaces the fingerprint images included in the first polygon and the second polygon defined based on these straight line components". Therefore, the combination is on the basis of the extracted patterns).
Satou does not disclose expressly to acquire three dimensional information on a skin.
He discloses:
acquire three-dimensional information on a skin ([0224] a 3D fingerprint structure is obtained);
Satou and He are combinable because they are from the same field of endeavor of sensing biometric patterns such as fingerprints (Satou, [0001]; He, [0002]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the three-dimensional skin information of He with the invention of Satou.
The motivation for doing so would have been "The disclosed optical fingerprint sensing by capturing information on the internal fingerprint pattern associated with the external ridges and valleys of a finger under the finger skin [i.e. the three-dimensional information] is substantially immune from the contact conditions between the finger and the top touch surface of the device . . . and the conditions of the external finger skin condition" (He, [0123]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine He with Satou to obtain the invention as specified in claim 1.
Regarding claim 2, Satou in view of He discloses the subject matter of claim 1.
Satou further discloses:
The information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the singular area is an area recessed from its surroundings ([0166] a Z type surgery performs a cutting and suturing along line C of Fig. 16. A person of ordinary skill would understand that such a line may be recessed) and includes a wrinkle area ([0166] and Fig. 14 and 16, the line C is the result of surgical operation and may be understood as a wrinkle in the skin).
Regarding claim 3, Satou in view of He discloses the subject matter of claim 1.
Satou further discloses:
The information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the at least one processor is configured to execute the instructions to generate the combined pattern image in which the pattern and the singular area pattern are combined, on the basis of a singular area pattern that is connectable to a pattern of an area adjacent to the singular area, out of the singular area pattern ([0180]-[0186] the second polygon was identified as the singular area patter which is connectable to the first polygon which was identified as the pattern. Further, the first polygon is adjacent to line C, the singular area, and is outside of the singular are pattern, the second polygon).
Regarding claim 4, Satou in view of He discloses the subject matter of claim 1.
Satou further discloses:
The information processing apparatus according to claim 1,wherein the at least one processor is configured to execute the instructions to further generate a ridge image in which a ridge is extracted from the combined pattern image ([0188] ridge lines are matched after the repair of [0185]-[0186] which may be understood as generating a ridge image from the combined pattern image).
Regarding claim 6, Satou in view of He discloses the subject matter of claim 1.
Satou further discloses:
The information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the at least one processor is configured to execute the instructions to associate singular area information indicating that a feature point is based on the singular area pattern ([0182] and Fig. 16, point G is a feature point that is based on the singular area pattern, i.e. the second polygon), with the corresponding feature point, when the feature point included in the combined pattern image is in an area based on the singular area pattern ([0182]-[0183] and Fig. 16, point G is associated with a corresponding feature point D in the combined image because in the combined image point D meets point G which is understood as the feature point being in an area based on the singular area pattern).
Regarding claim 10, claim 10 recites a method with steps corresponding to the elements of the system recited in claims 1. Therefore, the recited steps of this claim are mapped to the proposed combination in the same manner as the corresponding elements in its corresponding system claim, claim 1. Additionally, the rationale and motivation to combine the Satou in view of He, presented in rejection of claim 1, apply to this claim.
Regarding claim 11, claim 11 recites a non-transitory computer readable medium performing instructions with steps corresponding to the elements of the system recited in claims 1. Therefore, the recited steps of this claim are mapped to the proposed combination in the same manner as the corresponding elements in its corresponding system claim, claim 1. Additionally, the rationale and motivation to combine the Satou in view of He, presented in rejection of claim 1, apply to this claim.
Satou further discloses:
A non-transitory recording medium on which a computer program that allows a computer to execute an information processing method is recorded ([0208] a memory stores a program, the memory may be a non-transitory memory),
Claims 5 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Satou et al. (US 20180089484 A1; hereafter, Satou) in view of He et al. (US 20190303639 A1; hereafter, He) in further view of Li et al. (US 20200051276 A1; hereafter, Li).
Regarding claim 5, Satou in view of He discloses the subject matter of claim 1.
Satou in view of He does not disclose expressly to add higher reliability when a recess is shallower than that in the surroundings of the singular area.
Li discloses:
The information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the at least one processor is configured to execute the instructions to add higher reliability as a degree of a recess is shallower than that in surroundings of the singular area ([0021] "the present invention decreases the confidence level/weight at positions corresponding to the finger valley while at the same time increases the confidence level/ weight at positions corresponding to the finger ridge," A valley may be understood as a singular area. The examiner understands a ridge to be shallower than a valley, therefore giving a ridge more confidence is understood as giving it higher reliability based on it being shallower than the singular area surroundings).
Li is combinable with Satou in view of He because it is in the same field of endeavor of fingerprint image analysis (Li, [0002]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the adding higher reliability of Li with the invention of Satou in view of He.
The motivation for doing so would have been "so as to address the disadvantages of misjudging the fingerprint orientation caused by the defects in the fingerprint when computing the fingerprint orientation using the current technology" (Li, [0021]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Li with Satou in view of He to obtain the invention as specified in claim 5.
Regarding claim 7, Satou in view of He in further view of Li discloses the subject matter of claim 5.
Satou further discloses:
The information processing apparatus according to claim 5, wherein the at least one processor is configured to execute the instructions to: match the combined pattern image with a registration pattern image registered in advance ([0205] the combined image, i.e. repaired image, is matched with the registration pattern image, i.e. the pre-registered biological pattern),
Satou in view of He does not disclose expressly to change the weighting of a feature point in accordance with the reliability.
Li discloses:
and change weighting of a feature point included in the combined pattern image in accordance with the reliability ([0021] the confidence level or weight is changed. Therefore, the changing of the confidence level, i.e. reliability, is also understood to change the weighting of a feature point).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the change weighting of Li with the invention of Satou in view of He.
The motivation for doing so would have been "so as to address the disadvantages of misjudging the fingerprint orientation caused by the defects in the fingerprint when computing the fingerprint orientation using the current technology" (Li, [0021]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Li with Satou in view of He to obtain the invention as specified in claim 7.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Satou et al. (US 20180089484 A1; hereafter, Satou) in view of He et al. (US 20190303639 A1; hereafter, He) in further view of Abiko et al. (US 20120189171 A1; hereafter, Abiko).
Regarding claim 8, Satou in view of He discloses the subject matter of claim 6.
Satou further discloses:
The information processing apparatus according to claim 6, wherein the at least one processor is configured to execute the instructions to: match the combined pattern image with a registration pattern image registered in advance ([0205] the combined image, i.e. repaired image, is matched with the registration pattern image, i.e. the pre-registered biological pattern),
Satou in view of He does not disclose expressly to reduce weighting of the feature point with which the singular are data is associated.
Abiko discloses:
and reduce weighting of the feature point with which the singular area data is associated ([0145] a quality metric is set lower when it is in the same region as a blurring. The quality metric is understood as a weight as it impacts how a the point is used in calculation and the blurring region is understood as a singular area).
Abiko is combinable with Satou in view of He because it is from the same field of endeavor of biometric information processing (Abiko, [0002]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the weight reduction of the feature point of Abiko with the invention of Satou in view of He.
The motivation for doing so would have been "Since the quality of the biometric input image can be evaluated with higher accuracy, the biometric information processing apparatus can determine more accurately whether the biometric input image needs to be reacquired or not" (Abiko, [0162]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Abiko with Satou in view of He to obtain the invention as specified in claim 8.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 9 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include 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:
Regarding claim 9, Satou et al. (US 20180089484 A1; hereafter, Satou) in view of He et al. (US 20190303639 A1; hereafter, He) discloses the subject matter of claim 1. The closest prior art, Satou, discloses a combine matching score between the combined pattern image and a registration pattern image and an uncombined matching score between a pattern image and the registration pattern image. Zhang et al. (CN 113515988 A) discloses allowing a method of generating the combined image to be learned. The examiner interprets "to be learned" to indicate learning by a machine learning model. The prior art does not disclose or reasonably suggest to omit a combination between the pattern and the singular area pattern when a difference between the combined matching score and the uncombined matching score is below a predetermined value. Specifically, the prior art does not disclose or reasonably suggest determining a difference between a combined matching score and an uncombined matching score and comparing that difference to a threshold value.
The claim as a whole is found non-obvious over the prior art including:
to omit a combination between the pattern and the singular area pattern, when a difference between the combined matching score and the uncombined matching score is smaller than a predetermined value.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Zhang et al. (CN 113515988 A) discloses a machine learning method for learning the pattern of a fingerprint and matching it to a registered pattern of a fingerprint
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSHUA B CROCKETT whose telephone number is (571)270-7989. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8am-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, John M Villecco can be reached at (571) 272-7319. 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.
/JOSHUA B. CROCKETT/Examiner, Art Unit 2661
/JOHN VILLECCO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2661
Prosecution Insights