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
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) filed on September 27, 2024, has been considered by the examiner.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
‘driving means’ in Claim 7, and
‘reading means’ in Claim 7.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
The Examiner has interpreted the ‘driving means’ to be a motor for moving the ‘reading unit’ (see paragraph [0053] of the instant specification). The Examiner has interpreted the ‘reading means’ as a scanner apparatus or sensor capable of reading biometric information (see paragraph [0049] of the instant specification).
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 factual inquiries 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, 2, 4-5, 8, 12-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Naoto et al. (JP Pub No 2020003873), hereinafter Naoto and further in view of Hastings et al. (US Pub No 20200320814), hereinafter Hastings.
As to Claim 1, Naoto teaches an information processing apparatus (see Fig. 1, biometric authentication device 100) comprising:
at least one memory storing instructions (see Fig. 1, memory 12);
and at least one processor (see Fig. 1, Central Processing Unit 11, and see paragraph [0017], “The CPU 11 executes the biometric authentication program 12 a stored in the memory 12”) configured to execute the instructions to
acquire posture information indicating a posture of a user who performs biometric authentication (see paragraph [0010], “The present invention has been made in view of the problems described above, and an object of the present invention is to provide a technique for enabling an image capturing unit to capture an image of each finger in a posture and position suitable for authentication when authenticating a biometric using images of a plurality of fingers”)
input the acquired posture information to a learned model learned to estimate quality information from the input posture information (see paragraph [0016], “The image input unit 18 acquires an image captured by the imaging device 9 of the imaging unit 2, and inputs the acquired image to the authentication processing unit 10” and see paragraph [0025], “the parameters are learned based on machine learning such as DCNN (Deep Convolutional Neural Network), and see paragraph [0027], “the authentication processing unit 10 determines whether the finger held over is suitable for authentication”, where the examiner has interpreted ‘suitability’ as quality information).
and output estimated quality information by performing machine learning using the posture information and quality information indicating quality of biometric information corresponding to the posture information as teacher data (see paragraph [0026], “As an example of another technique, when preparing a large amount of teacher data as described above, the teacher data may be created including posture information such as fingertip positions, finger crotch positions, joint positions, and the like, machine learning may be performed including the posture information , and the posture information may be estimated and output with respect to the input of unknown finger image data”);
receive the estimated quality information output from the learned model (see paragraph [0027], “the authentication processing unit 10 determines whether the finger held over is suitable for authentication. The user holds his or her finger in accordance with the finger guide displayed on the display unit 15, but the user does not necessarily hold his or her finger in a state suitable for authentication. Therefore, taking into account information such as the fingertip position, the crotch position, the area of the finger, and the like, it is determined whether the posture of the finger is within a predefined tolerance range”);
and output the received estimated quality information (see paragraph [0020], “The display unit 15 is, for example, a liquid crystal display, and is an output device that displays information received from the authentication processing unit 10, posture guidance information of a living body, posture determination results, and the like”).
Naoto fails to explicitly teach performing machine learning using the posture information and quality information indicating quality of biometric information corresponding to the posture information as teacher data. However, in an analogous art Hastings teaches a model (see paragraph [0070], “Embodiments of system 400 implement video analytics using human operators, artificial intelligence (AI), and/or deep learning algorithms” to authenticate users (see abstract, “Various embodiments of the present invention are directed toward systems and methods relating to security screening”),
which using the posture information and quality information indicating quality of biometric information corresponding to the posture information as teacher data (see paragraph [0074], “An example system 400 initiates scans and achieves user tracking automatically using video analytics by the system 400 analyzing video feed from optical system 426 to identify an identity of the user 404, and their body posture/limb position, to build a motion wireframe for tracking and comparing against a dynamically learned/updated database of wireframe body positions that are known to be suitable for a given type of scan”, where the Examiner has interpreted the ‘database’ as the teacher data).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the database comprising postures and quality information taught by Hastings with the biometric authentication system taught by Naoto. The motivation for doing so would be to improve authentication by reducing false alarms. Hastings teaches in paragraph [0120], “Such detection capabilities exponentially improve detection algorithm performance and reduce false alarm rates in the primary security screening technologies incorporated into the example systems described herein”. Thus, it would have been obvious to combine the quality information corresponding to postures taught by Hastings with the teachings of Naoto in order to obtain the invention as claimed in Claim 1.
As to Claim 2, Naoto in view of Hastings teaches the posture information includes joint position information indicating a joint position of the user (see Naoto, paragraph [0026], “The finger posture can be defined as fingertip positions of a plurality of fingers, a position of a crotch being a connection portion between adjacent fingers, a length, a width, and an area of each finger, an orientation of a central axis of the finger, a joint bend, a joint warp, an open/closed state of the finger indicating a degree of proximity between adjacent fingers, a bent or extended state of each finger, and the like”).
As to Claim 4, Naoto fails to explicitly teaches the posture information includes body shape information indicating a body shape of the user.
However, Hastings teaches that posture information including body shape information can be obtained (see paragraph [0109], “The system has already determined the height and dimensions of the user”).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the body shape information taught by Hastings with the biometric authentication system taught by Naoto. The motivation for doing so would be to better guide the user through the authentication system by using body shape information. Hastings teaches in paragraph [0120], “The system has already determined the height and dimensions of the user based on the earlier scan, and calculates that in order to obtain a desired position for scanning the user, the user will need to reach toward a certain height, and the system is configured with multiple divestment bins and correspondingly different heights, and chooses the appropriate bin to cause the user to reach in the desired manner that positions the user's body appropriate for the scan to obtain needed scanning information of the user”). Thus, it would have been obvious to combine the quality information corresponding to postures taught by Hastings with the teachings of Naoto in order to obtain the invention as claimed in Claim 1.
As to Claim 5, Naoto in view of Hastings teaches the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions to generate guidance information for prompting a change in the posture of the user according to the estimated quality information (see Naoto, paragraph [0055], “The fingertip guide region 81 may be displayed on the screen in the same manner as the finger contour guide 63 described above, and see paragraph [0057], “Therefore, it is desirable to confirm that the angle of each finger is within a certain allowable range and, in a case where the angle of each finger is not within the allowable range, display a message such as "Please slightly open the finger" or "Please slightly close the finger" as guidance regarding the angle of each finger.”).
As to Claim 8, Naoto in view of Hastings teaches wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions to acquire the biometric information (see Naoto, paragraph [0014], “The biometric authentication device 100 is a device that authenticates a biometric using an image of a blood vessel (of a finger 1, such as a finger vein)”);
and calculate the quality information corresponding to the biometric information (see paragraph [0027], “the authentication processing unit 10 determines whether the finger held over is suitable for authentication”).
As to Claim 12, Naoto in view of Hastings teaches an information processing method for causing a computer (see Naoto, Fig. 1, biometric authentication 100) to execute the same steps recited in Claim 1. Therefore, the rejection and rationale are analogous to Claim 1.
As to Claim 13, Claim 13 claims the same limitation claimed as Claim 2 and is dependent on a similarly rejected independent claim. Therefore, the rejection and rationale are similar to that of Claim 2.
As to Claim 14, Naoto in view of Hastings teaches a non-transitory computer-readable medium (see Naoto, paragraph [0103], “In addition, each of the above described configurations, functions, and the like may be realized by software by the processor interpreting and executing a program for realizing each of the functions. Information such as programs, tables, and files for realizing each function can be placed in a memory, a recording device such as a hard disk, and SSD (Solid State Drive), or a recording medium such as an IC card, a SD card, and a DVD”) having a program stored thereon, the program causing a computer to execute the same steps recited in Claim 1. Therefore, the rejection and rationale are analogous to Claim 1.
As to Claim 15, Claim 15 claims the same limitation claimed as Claim 2 and is dependent on a similarly rejected independent claim. Therefore, the rejection and rationale are similar to that of Claim 2.
Claims 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Naoto et al. (JP Pub No 2020003873), hereinafter Naoto, further in view of Hastings et al. (US Pub No 20200320814), hereinafter Hastings, and further in view of Shila (US Pub No 20200349245), hereinafter Shila.
As to Claim 3, Naoto in view of Hastings fails to teach the posture information includes vibration information indicating vibration of the user.
However, in an analogous art, Shila teaches a biometric authentication device (see abstract),
which teaches collecting vibration information indicating vibration of the user (see paragraph [0008], “In one aspect, the biometric acoustic signals can include …include hand motion patterns, hand vibration patterns, or a combination thereof”). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the vibration information taught by Shila with the biometric authentication stem taught by Naoto in view of Hastings. The motivation for doing so would be to obtain more data to distinguish different users. Shila teaches in paragraph [0071], “the breathing pattern, heart rate and chest movement pattern, hand motion and vibration of a user detected at a first time and a second time, while not completely identical, are similar compared to that of a different person. Thus, a hashed feature vector of the same user as that of the enrollment feature vector, while not identical can be very similar”. Thus, it would have been obvious to combine the vibration information taught by Shila with the teachings of Naoto and Hastings in order to obtain the invention as claimed in Claim 3.
Claims 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Naoto et al. (JP Pub No 2020003873), hereinafter Naoto further in view of Hastings et al. (US Pub No 20200320814), hereinafter Hastings, and further in view of Miura et al. (JP Pub No 2022021537), hereinafter Miura.
As to Claim 6, Naoto in view of Hastings teaches wherein the posture information includes a parameter value for representing a posture of the user (see paragraph [0060], “In this example, a standard center line 107 is defined according to the fingertip position of each finger, and a threshold is determined for the angular difference between the central axis 101 of the finger and the standard center line 107. In the right diagram of Fig.6, the angles were determined to be + 2 degrees,-1 degrees,-2 degrees, and-3 degrees in order from the top”, where the angular difference is a parameter value representing the posture of the user’s hand),
and inputting posture information into a model (see Naoto, paragraph [0026], “machine learning may be performed including the posture information , and the posture information may be estimated and output”)
in order to generate the guidance information according to the output estimated quality information (see Naoto, see paragraph [0057], “Therefore, it is desirable to confirm that the angle of each finger is within a certain allowable range and, in a case where the angle of each finger is not within the allowable range, display a message such as "Please slightly open the finger" or "Please slightly close the finger" as guidance regarding the angle of each finger.”).
Naoto in view of Hastings fails to explicitly teach modified posture information having a parameter value different from a parameter value of the posture information to the learned model, and generate the guidance information according to the output estimated quality information.
However, in an analogous art, teaches obtaining parameter values representing a posture of a user (see paragraph [0042], “degree of proximity between adjacent fingers, the bent or extended state of each finger, and the like can be defined”),
and that posture data may be modified (see paragraph [0062], “Here, it is assumed that the posture correcting unit 23 of the authentication processing unit 10 has acquired positional information relating to various finger postures, such as a finger contour line, a fingertip, a finger base, and a straight line of a central axis extending in a longitudinal direction of the finger. It is also assumed that the orientation corrector 23 has implemented rotation correction with respect to the rotation of the finger in the two-dimensional image plane (this is referred to as the yawing rotation of the finger), in other words, the finger ROI image has been acquired so that the central axis of the finger and the longitudinal direction of the finger ROI image are parallel”, where the parameter values are changed through the ‘rotation correction’).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the posture modification taught by Miura with the biometric authentication system taught by Naoto in view of Hastings. The motivation for doing so would be to better guide the user. Miura teaches in paragraph [0004], “However, for example, in a case where an operation of causing a finger to stand still in the air is required, an infinite number of positions and orientations of the finger are conceivable, and thus the user may fail to correctly bend the finger and may fail to perform authentication. Thus, as a system, it is necessary to guide the user such that the user can capture an image of a finger in a correct position or posture, and to feedback that the image is being captured appropriately….In other words, a finger orientation-guiding technique, an orientation-preferred determination technique, and an orientation-correction technique are necessary.” Thus, it would have been obvious to combine the modified posture information taught by Miura with the teachings of Naoto and Hastings in order to obtain the invention as claimed in Claim 6.
Claims 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Naoto et al. (JP Pub No 2020003873), hereinafter Naoto, further in view of Hastings et al. (US Pub No 20200320814), hereinafter Hastings, and further in view of Hoard (US Pub No 20220351481), hereinafter Hoard.
As to Claim 7, Naoto in view of Hastings teaches a biometric information detection apparatus used for the biometric authentication includes reading means for reading the biometric information of the user (see Naoto, paragraph [0014], “The biometric authentication device 100 is a device that authenticates a biometric using an image of a blood vessel (of a finger 1, such as a finger vein). The biometric authentication apparatus 100 includes an imaging unit 2”, where the examiner has interpreted the ‘imaging unit’ as the reading device).
Naoto in view of Hastings fails to explicitly teach driving means for moving reading means, the at least one processor configured to execute instructions to control the driving means in accordance with the estimated quality information. However, in an analogous art, Hoard teaches a biometric sensor for biometric authentication (see abstract),
that comprises a driving means to control the readings means in accordance to quality information (see paragraph[0022], “the adjustment mechanism may include a motor. The controller may be further configured to: determine a quality level of the first biometric data; determine the quality level is below a threshold quality level; and activate the motor to adjust the neutral position of the biometric scanner in order to increase the quality level of the second biometric data”, where the Examiner has interpreted the ‘motor’ as the driving means, and the ‘biometric scanner’ as the reading means).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the driving means taught by Hoard with the biometric authentication system taught by Naoto in view of Hastings. The motivation for doing so would be to improve the quality of biometric data, as taught by Hoard in paragraph [0022]. Thus, it would have been obvious to combine the driving means taught by Hoard with the reading means taught by Naoto in view of Hastings in order to obtain the invention as claimed in Claim 7.
Claims 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Naoto et al. (JP Pub No 2020003873), hereinafter Naoto, further in view of Hastings et al. (US Pub No 20200320814), hereinafter Hastings, and further in view of Khoury et al. (US Pub No 20230137652 ), hereinafter Khoury.
As to Claim 9, Naoto in view of Hastings fails to explicitly teach the learned model is relearned using the calculated quality information.
However, in an analogous art, Khoury teaches a classifier for authenticating biometric signals,
which may be retrained using calculated quality information (see paragraph [0006], “In some cases, the loss layers of the machine-learning architecture may retrain or tune the machine-learning architecture or embedding extractor using the quality measure as input when a loss function is applied to the training embeddings or other inputs”).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the retraining taught by Khoury with the biometric authentication system taught by Naoto in view of Hastings. The motivation for doing so would be to fine tune the machine learning model by reducing loss, as taught by Khoury in paragraph [0006]. Thus, it would have been obvious to combine the retraining taught by Khoury with the teachings of Naoto and Hastings in order to obtain the invention as claimed in Claim 9.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Chung et al. (US Pub No 20210034729) teaches a machine learning model for biometric authentication that can obtain the posture of a user and the quality of biometric data.
Endoh et al. (US Pub No 20130287268) teaches a biometric authentication device that can obtain the posture of a user, and create a three dimensional model of a vein pattern.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SOUMYA THOMAS whose telephone number is (571)272-8639. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5:00.
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, Jennifer Mehmood can be reached at (571) 272-2976. 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.
/S.T./Examiner, Art Unit 2664
/JENNIFER MEHMOOD/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2664
Prosecution Insights