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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 16 October 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On page 7 of the response the applicant argues amended claim 1 [previous claim 2]. Specifically, the applicant argues that Shindo at most discloses that when “the portable telephone 100 determines that the distance is not appropriate, the guide beam light 62 blinks and irradiates the hand 31” and thus does not display “a trigger image indicating start of reading biometric information” as recited in claim 1. The office respectfully disagrees.
The claim language is broad. As stated in the rejection, Shindo discloses that the guide beam light 62 blinks and irradiates the hand 31, the distance is adjusted until it is appropriate, and the mobile phone 100 captures the vein pattern of the palm of the hand 31. Thus, the “trigger image” in Shindo does “indicate” the start of reading biometric information as claimed. There is nothing in claim 1 about the details of the trigger image, i.e. what the trigger image looks like, etc. nor is there anything in claim 1 that states that the reading of the biometric information is started immediately after the start of displaying the trigger image. According the claim 1, the trigger image merely needs to “indicate” the start, which, as explained above, Shindo discloses. Thus, Shindo does anticipate the claim language, and the rejection is maintained.
On pages 8-9 of the response the applicant merely lists the other claims and recites that they are all patentable based on claim 1, however, as explained above, the rejection of claim 1 is maintained, and thus the rejection of claims 3-18 are also maintained.
Claim Objections
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 5 recites “The information processing apparatus according to claim 2” however, claim 2 has been cancelled [and the subject matter included in claim 1]. Thus, claim 5 should be dependent from claim 1.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 3, 5-6, 8-10, 12-15 and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Shindo et al. (KR 20110118633 A).
Regarding claim 1, Shindo et al. disclose an information processing apparatus (Figure 3) comprising:
at least one memory storing computer-executable instructions (Figure 3, RAM 122 and NVRAM 123. See the last paragraph on page 33 of the provided document to the first paragraph on page 34: “The RAM 122 is a memory that temporarily stores data used for a program or a process executed by the CPU 124. At least a part of various programs and data are temporarily stored in the RAM 122 by the CPU 124. In addition, the data stored in the RAM 122 is updated appropriately by the CPU 124. Instead of the RAM 122, other types of volatile memories may be used. The NVRAM 123 is a memory that stores data used for a program or a process executed by the CPU 124. The NVRAM 123 stores various programs for realizing the communication function and the display control function in advance. The NVRAM 123 also stores various data used with these programs.”); and
at least one processor configured to access the at least one memory and execute the computer-executable instructions (Figure 3, processor 124. See the second paragraph on page 34 of the provided document: “The CPU 124 controls the operation of the entire cellular phone 100. Specifically, the CPU 124 reads a program or data from the NVRAM 123 at the time of startup of the cellular phone 100 and thereafter as needed, and executes the program using the RAM 122.”) to:
acquire a projection image obtained by projecting a predetermined guidance image onto a hand of a user presented on a biometric information reading apparatus configured to read predetermined biometric information from the user’s hand (Figure 12 and Figure 15, S44. See page 45 of the provided document, the paragraph regarding step S44: “[Step S44] The induction LED driver 119 changes the indicator image projected by the induction LEDs 115 and 115a based on the induction information acquired from the induction information output unit 137. In addition, the attitude of the induction LEDs 115 and 115a is changed to change the projection position of the indicator image.”);
determine whether the guidance image and the image of the hand included in the projection image correspond to a predetermined condition (Figures 10, 12 and 15-16, where the predetermined position is the distance and alignment. See page 46 of the provided document with regards to Figure 16: “In doing so, the cellular phone 100 irradiates the distance measuring beam light 61 to the hand 31 to measure the distance between the hand 31 and the imaging unit 110. When the portable telephone 100 determines that the distance is not appropriate… When the mobile phone 100 determines that the distance is appropriate…The cellular phone 100 determines that re-authentication is necessary when the calculated similarity is in the range of P1 or more and P2…”); and
output a predetermined control signal to the biometric information reading apparatus based on the determination (See page 46 of the provided document with regards to Figure 16: “When the portable telephone 100 determines that the distance is not appropriate, the guide beam light 62 blinks and irradiates the hand 31... When the mobile phone 100 determines that the distance is appropriate, the mobile phone 100 captures the vein pattern of the palm of the hand 31...The cellular phone 100 determines that re-authentication is necessary when the calculated similarity is in the range of P1 or more and P2. The mobile phone 100 then irradiates the hand 31 with the guide beam light 63 for projecting the indicator image in addition to the guide beam light 62 based on the position alignment information obtained from the calculation result of the similarity…” Thus, a control signal is output based on the determination to control the guide beam light.);
perform the determination under the predetermined condition that a trigger image indicating start of reading biometric information in the guidance image is projected on the hand (See page 46 of the provided document with regards to Figure 16: “When the portable telephone 100 determines that the distance is not appropriate, the guide beam light 62 blinks and irradiates the hand 31...” where the blinking is “a trigger image” indicating start of biometric information.), and
output the control signal for starting reading to the biometric information reading apparatus when the projection image corresponds to the predetermined condition (See page 46 of the provided document with regards to Figure 16: “When the mobile phone 100 determines that the distance is appropriate, the mobile phone 100 captures the vein pattern of the palm of the hand 31...”).
Regarding claim 3, Shindo et al. disclose the information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions to:
perform the determination under the predetermined condition that the posture of the hand included in the projection image is in a state where biometric information is readable (See page 46 of the provided document with regards to Figure 16: “When the mobile phone 100 determines that the distance is appropriate...”), and
output the control signal for prompting adjustment of the posture of the hand when the posture of the hand does not correspond to the predetermined condition (See page 46 of the provided document with regards to Figure 16: “When the portable telephone 100 determines that the distance is not appropriate, the guide beam light 62 blinks and irradiates the hand 31...”).
Regarding claim 5, Shindo et al. disclose the information processing apparatus according to claim 2, further comprising: the biometric information reading apparatus that is provided at a position where biometric information can be read from a finger of the hand corresponding to the predetermined condition to perform a biometric information reading operation according to the control signal (See page 46 of the provided document with regards to Figure 16: “When the mobile phone 100 determines that the distance is appropriate, the mobile phone 100 captures the vein pattern of the palm of the hand 31...” Thus, the position is one in which biometric information “can be” read from a finger of the hand. It is noted that the claim merely says that the position is one in which biometric information “can be” read from the finger, not that biometric data is actually read from the finger.).
Regarding claim 6, Shindo et al. disclose an information processing system comprising:
the information processing apparatus according to claim 5 (See claim 5 above); and
an authentication apparatus (Figure 1, authentication device 1.) that acquires biometric information read by the biometric information reading apparatus, authenticates the acquired biometric information, and supplies a result of the authentication to the information processing apparatus (The authentication device 1 acquires the biometric information and authenticates, then provides the result to the processor such that the processor controls functions of the device.).
Regarding claim 8, Shindo et al. disclose the information processing apparatus according to claim 1, further comprising:
a guidance image projection apparatus (Figure 16, 62) that projects a first guidance image including a first message to be projected onto the hand existing at a biometric information readable position of the biometric information reading apparatus (See page 46 of the provided document with regards to Figure 16: “When the portable telephone 100 determines that the distance is not appropriate, the guide beam light 62 blinks and irradiates the hand 31...”) and a second guidance image including a second message different from the first message to be projected onto the hand existing at a position separated from the biometric information readable position (Figure 12, 53a and 53b [arrows].).
Regarding claim 9, Shindo et al. disclose the information processing apparatus according to claim 8, wherein the guidance image projection apparatus forms an image in a range of a depth of field of the biometric information reading apparatus with respect to the hand, and projects the first guidance image so as not to form an image outside the range of the depth of field (Figures 12 and 16, an image is not formed outside of the field of view.).
Regarding claim 10, Shindo et al. disclose the information processing apparatus according to claim 9, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions to:
determine that the first guidance image is formed on the hand as the predetermined condition (See page 46 of the provided document with regards to Figure 16: “When the portable telephone 100 determines that the distance is not appropriate, the guide beam light 62 blinks and irradiates the hand 31...”).
Regarding claim 12, Shindo et al. disclose the information processing apparatus according to claim 8, wherein
the guidance image projection apparatus includes a following mechanism that projects the guidance image following the user’s hand (Figures 1 and 12), and
the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions to the control signal output means outputs output a control signal for causing the guidance image projection apparatus to output the guidance image according to the position of the hand based on the determination (Figure 12, as the user’s hand moves the guidance follows, and thus the output is controlled to display the arrows 53a and 53b at the appropriate locations.).
Regarding claim 13, Shindo et al. disclose the information processing apparatus according to claim 8, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions to:
acquire attribute information of the user (Figure 16, the distance of the user is acquired [attribute information]. See page 46 of the provided document with regards to Figure 16: “When the portable telephone 100 determines that the distance is not appropriate..”), and
output the control signal for outputting the guidance image corresponding to the acquired attribute information to the guidance image projection apparatus (See page 46 of the provided document with regards to Figure 16: “When the portable telephone 100 determines that the distance is not appropriate, the guide beam light 62 blinks and irradiates the hand 31...”).
Regarding claim 14, this claim is rejected under the same rationale as claim 5.
Regarding claim 15, this claim is rejected under the same rationale as claim 6.
Regarding claim 17, this claim is rejected under the same rationale as claim 1.
Regarding claim 18, this claim is rejected under the same rationale as claim 1.
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.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shindo et al. (KR 20110118633 A) in view of Wang (CN 107817898 A).
Regarding claim 4, Shindo et al. disclose the information processing apparatus according to claim 1.
Shindo et al. fail to teach wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions to:
detect whether the hand included in the projection image is a right hand or a left hand, and perform the determination under the predetermined condition that one of the right hand or the left hand set in advance is detected, and
output the control signal for prompting presentation of the opposite hand when the image of the hand does not correspond to the predetermined condition.
Wang discloses at least one processor configured to execute instructions to:
detect whether a hand included in a projection image is a right hand or a left hand, and perform determination under a predetermined condition that one of the right hand or the left hand set in advance is detected (See page 35 of the provided document, the paragraph reciting “Specifically, if detecting the current operation mode is the right hand mode, and according to the operation result of the preset condition obtained by the operation mode is left hand mode, then generating the prompt information to remind the user whether to switch the current operation mode, if the user triggers the determined operation instruction, then receiving the switching instruction sent by the user, and according to the instruction, switching the current operation mode to the conventional hand operation mode. otherwise, keeping the current operation mode.” Thus, if in the right hand mode and the right hand is used, then the predetermined condition of using the right hand is detected.), and
output the control signal for prompting presentation of the opposite hand when the image of the hand does not correspond to the predetermined condition (See page 35 of the provided document, the paragraph reciting “Specifically, if detecting the current operation mode is the right hand mode, and according to the operation result of the preset condition obtained by the operation mode is left hand mode, then generating the prompt information to remind the user whether to switch the current operation mode, if the user triggers the determined operation instruction, then receiving the switching instruction sent by the user, and according to the instruction, switching the current operation mode to the conventional hand operation mode. otherwise, keeping the current operation mode.” Thus, if in the right hand mode and the left hand is used, then the predetermined condition of using the right hand is not detected, and the user is prompted to use their right hand.).
Hence the prior art includes each element claimed although not necessarily in a single prior art reference, with the only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art being the lack of the actual combination of the elements in a single prior art reference. In combination, Shindo et al. performs the same function as it does separately of providing a guidance image for a user to perform biometric authentication, and Wang performs the same function as it does separately of determining a left hand and right hand provided for input.
Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, and that in combination, each element merely performed the same function as it does separately. The results of the combination would have been predictable and resulted in determining a left hand and right hand provided for input for biometric input in the information processing apparatus.
Therefore, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 7 and 16 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shindo et al. (KR 20110118633 A) in view of Ku et al. (US 2009/0322497).
Regarding claim 7, Shindo et al. disclose the information processing system according to claim 6.
Shindo et al. fail to teach the information processing system further comprising:
a tactile stimulation apparatus that stimulates a tactile sensation of the hand with respect to the hand on which the guidance image is projected, wherein
the stimulation to the tactile sense of the hand is set so as to be weaker as the distance to the biometric information reading apparatus is relatively shorter, and so as to be stronger as the distance to the biometric information reading apparatus is relatively longer.
Ku et al. disclose an information processing system comprising:
a tactile stimulation apparatus that stimulates a tactile sensation of the hand with respect to the distance of the hand (Figure 8 and paragraphs [0105]-[0106].), wherein
the stimulation to the tactile sense of the hand is set so as to be weaker as the distance to the biometric information reading apparatus is relatively shorter, and so as to be stronger as the distance to the biometric information reading apparatus is relatively longer (Figure 8 and paragraphs [0105]-[0106] disclose that the stimulation is different based on difference, and paragraph [0131] says that the stimulation can be set by a user, thus the stimulation can be set to be weaker as the distance to the biometric information reading apparatus is relatively shorter and set to be stronger as the distance to the biometric information reading apparatus is relatively longer.).
Thus, since Shindo et al. disclose of projecting the guidance image on the hand based on distance, and Ku et al. disclose tactile stimulation based on the distance of the hand, then in combination the tactile stimulation apparatus will stimulate a tactile sensation of the hand with respect to the hand on which the guidance image is projected.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, there had been a recognized problem or need in the art to provide different stimulation to the tactile sense of the hand based on distance to the biometric information reading apparatus. There were a finite number of identified and predictable potential solutions to the recognized need or problem which were i) the stimulation to the tactile sense of the hand is set so as to be weaker as the distance to the biometric information reading apparatus is relatively shorter, and so as to be stronger as the distance to the biometric information reading apparatus is relatively longer, or ii) the stimulation to the tactile sense of the hand is set so as to be weaker as the distance to the biometric information reading apparatus is relatively longer, and so as to be stronger as the distance to the biometric information reading apparatus is relatively shorter. One of ordinary skill in the art could have pursued the known potential solutions with a reasonable expectation of success since both provide different stimulation to the tactile sense of the hand based on distance to the biometric information reading apparatus. Therefore, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 16, this claim is rejected under the same rationale as claim 7.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shindo et al. (KR 20110118633 A) in view of Li (CN 107133557 A).
Regarding claim 11, Shindo et al. disclose the information processing apparatus according to claim 1.
Shindo et al. fail to teach wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions to:
calculate a size ratio between the hand included in the projection image and the projection image, and performs perform the determination under the predetermined condition that the size ratio is within a predetermined range, and
the control signal output means outputs output the control signal for changing the size of the projection image to the guidance image projection apparatus when the size ratio does not correspond to the predetermined condition.
Li discloses at least one processor configured to execute the instructions to:
calculate a size ratio between a hand included in a projection image and the projection image, and performs perform the determination under the predetermined condition that the size ratio is within a predetermined range (Paragraph [0048], it is determined that the size of the projection image exceeds the range of the palm, which would exceed a ratio of the size of the image of the hand and the size of the projection image, thus when the size is within the range, then the size ratio is within a predetermined range and the determination is performed.), and
the control signal output means outputs output the control signal for changing the size of the projection image to a guidance image projection apparatus when the size ratio does not correspond to the predetermined condition (Paragraph [0048], it is determined that the size of the projection image exceeds the range of the palm, which would exceed a ratio of the size of the image of the hand and the size of the projection image, and a signal to change the size of the projection image would be made by changing the location of the user’s hand.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to “one of ordinary skill” in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the size teachings of Li in the information processing apparatus taught by Shindo et al. The motivation to combine would have been in order to improve the speed of the recognition (See the last sentence of the Abstract of Li.).
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 STEPHEN G SHERMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-2941. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:00am - 4pm ET.
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.
/STEPHEN G SHERMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2621
5 November 2025
Prosecution Insights