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
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. 18852700, filed on 09/30/2024.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 09/30/2024, 02/07/2025, 04/08/2026, and 05/28/2026 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, they are being considered by the examiner.
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 1-7 and 9-16 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 1 (and similarly analogous claim 10), claim 1 recites the following antecedence issues: “the expected birefringent cornea features”, which should recite “the birefringent cornea features of the expected eye representation” and is being interpreted accordingly.
Regarding claims 1, 3, 5, 7, 12, 14, and 16, these claims use various terms to refer to the same element (at least one image) including ‘which image’, ‘said image’, ‘the captured image’, and ‘the image in which the birefringent cornea features are determined to be correctly rendered’. This creates numerous antecedence issues and must be corrected for consistency. The elements are all being interpreted as the same element.
Regarding claims 1, 5-7, 10, and 14-16, these claims describe the determination of features being “correctly rendered”. This terminology is inconsistent with standard use of “rendered”, as the term typically refers to how an image is computationally generated. In the context of the application, the use of “correctly rendered” does not appear to relate to if an image was generated correctly, but rather, if an image represents a real eye. The limitations relating to determining correct rendering are thus being interpreted accordingly.
Claims 2-7, 9, and 11-16 are rejected as dependent on claims 1 or 10.
Regarding claim 2-3 (and similarly analogous claim 11-12), the claims recite “the polarization of light” which has improper antecedence and is being interpreted as in reference to “polarized light” recited in the independent claims.
Regarding claim 2-3 (and similarly analogous claim 11-12), the claims recite “the camera” which has improper antecedence and is being interpreted as in reference to “polarization-sensitive camera” recited in the independent claims.
Regarding claim 2, claim 2 recites “the iris” which has improper antecedence and is being interpreted as a new element.
Regarding claim 3 (and similarly claim 12), claim 3 recites “a representation of an eye” which has improper antecedence and is interpreted as “the representation of the eye”.
Regarding claim 3 (and similarly claim 12), claim 3 recites “the captured images” which has improper antecedence and is interpreted as “the four simultaneous images”.
Regarding claim 3 (and similarly claim 12), claim 3 recites “the created image” which has improper antecedence and is interpreted as “the created single image”.
Regarding claim 3 (and similarly claim 12), claim 3 recites “the intensity” which has improper antecedence and is interpreted as “an intensity”.
Regarding claim 3 (and similarly claim 12), claim 3 recites “intensity stipulated by the computed degree of linear polarization”. This limitation, particularly the use of ‘stipulated by’, is unclear. This is being interpreted as “intensity according to the computed degree of linear polarization’.
Regarding claim 6 (and similarly claim 15), claim 6 recites “the detected birefringent cornea features determined to be correctly rendered” which lacks proper antecedence and is being interpreted as a new element (distinct from ‘the detected birefringent cornea features’ of the independent claims).
Regarding claim 7 (and similarly claim 16), claim 7 recites “the image in which the birefringent cornea features are determined to be correctly rendered” which lacks proper antecedence and is being interpreted as a new element.
Regarding claim 9, claim 7 recites “the computer readable medium” which lacks proper antecedence and is being interpreted as “the non-transitory computer readable medium.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 4, 9, 10, and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ivanisov (US20170161578A1) in view of Yu (US 20110142297 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Ivanisov teaches “A method of a biometric recognition system of performing real-eye detection for an individual,” (Ivanisov, “The present invention also includes a method for initiating an action based on characteristics of acquired biometric information. In an embodiment, the invention comprises (i) receiving at least one image comprising an image of at least part of an eye, (ii) determining whether the at least part of an eye has birefringent characteristics, and (iii) initiating a predefined action responsive to (a) the at least part of an eye exhibiting birefringent characteristics that are inconsistent with a predefined set of birefringent characteristics or (b) a determined lack of birefringent characteristics typical of a real eye. The predefined action may comprise any one or more of denying biometric enrollment, denying (or rejecting or failing) biometric authentication, denying (or rejecting or failing) access to a resource, denying (or rejecting or failing) a request for unlocking of a resource, or transmitting or recording information identifying a spoof.”)
“comprising: capturing at least one image comprising a representation of an eye of the individual, which image is captured utilizing polarized light reflected at the eye and received at a polarization-sensitive camera capturing said image,” (Ivanisov, Paragraph 57, “Step 914 comprises acquiring a fourth image corresponding to the candidate eye. In an embodiment, said fourth image is acquired or generated, subject to both of (i) illumination of the candidate eye by polarized light for the purpose of image acquisition and (ii) acquisition of said fourth image is achieved by image sensor pixels having a fourth selectivity to polarization of incident light—which fourth selectivity is higher than the third selectivity. In an embodiment, said image sensor pixels may be sufficiently sensitive to polarization characteristics of incident light to enable capture of eye images which includes artefacts introduced by polarization of incident light.”)
“wherein a polarization configuration is selected which produces an iso-chrome pattern of the representation of the eye in the captured image;” (Ivanisov, Figure 2 and Paragraph 38, “The first and second polarizing filters PF1.2 and PF2.2 may comprise linear polarizers and the angle of polarization of the first polarizing filter and the angle of polarization of the second polarizing filter may be identical. In another embodiment, the first and second polarizing fΩ filters may comprise linear polarizers and the angle of polarization of the first polarizing filter and the angle of polarization of the second polarizing filter may be perpendicular to each other.” Note that the configuration of Figure 2, wherein the linear filters are perpendicular and the birefringent object (eye) is being captured, amounts to a crossed linear polarization configuration that produces an iso-chrome pattern of the eye.)
“detecting, from the representation, birefringent features of a cornea of the individual;” (Ivanisov, Paragraph 69, “Step 916 comprises acquiring or generating a third set of image information (FN) corresponding to at least part of an eye, wherein the third set of image information excludes image information corresponding to artefacts arising from birefringence in a real cornea. In an embodiment, the third set of image information is extracted from the third image. Step 918 comprises generating or acquiring a fourth set of image information (FP) corresponding to at least part of an eye, wherein the fourth set of image information includes image information corresponding to artefacts arising from birefringence in a real cornea. In an embodiment, the fourth set of image information may be extracted from the fourth image.”)
While Ivanisov teaches the comparison of the detected birefringent cornea features with the birefringent cornea features of an expected eye representation (Ivanisov, Paragraphs 65 and 70, “Step 906 comprises acquiring or generating a first set of image information (TN) corresponding to at least part of an eye, wherein the first set of image information excludes image information corresponding to artefacts arising from birefringence in a real cornea. In an embodiment, the first set of image information is generated based on information extracted from the first image. Step 908 comprises acquiring or generating a second set of image information (TP) corresponding to at least part of an eye, wherein the second set of image information includes image information corresponding to artefacts arising from birefringence in a real cornea. In an embodiment, the second set of image information is generated based on information extracted from the second image. Step 910 thereafter comprises storing the first and second sets of biometric information/first and second biometric templates (TN, TP) in a biometric template repository and/or associating the first and second sets of image information with a subject to whom the first eye corresponds.”; “Step 920 comprises comparing, or scoring intra-pair similarities corresponding to, at least two of the following pairs: (i) a first pair (TN, FN) comprising the first set of image information (TN) and the third set of image information (FN); (ii) a second pair (TN, FP) comprising the first set of image information (TN) and the fourth set of image information (FP); (iii) a third pair (TP,FN) comprising the second set of image information (TP) and the third set of image information (FN); (iv) a fourth pair (TP,FP) comprising the second set of image information (TP) and the fourth set of image information (FP); (v) a fifth pair (TN,TP) comprising the first set of image information (TN) and the second set of image information (TP); and (vi) a sixth pair (FN, FP) comprising the third set of image information (FN) and the fourth set of image information (FP).”), Ivanisov does not expressly disclose aligning the features.
Yu teaches aligning eye images for matching (Yu, Paragraph 43, “In another embodiment of step 206, a template is generated from the original digital image and the calculated angle of relative rotation is stored in association with the template or as part of the template. This data indicating the angle of presentation of the eye is used as an input to an iris matching engine to guide the matching engine in performing more efficient rotational comparisons. In the prior art, iris matching engines typically performed a series of rotational comparisons within a predetermined range, without regard to how the eye may have been presented in the image. In this embodiment, rather than performing a standard series of relative rotational comparisons, a modified matching engine is provided wherein the rotational compensation function of the matching engine can be set to compensate for the measured rotation of that specific image. The measured rotations of the images from which the two templates were generated may be summed to determine a relative rotation of the images from which the two templates were generated. That relative rotation is implemented by the matching engine which rotates the templates to match the relative eye rotation of the base images. In this manner, a single comparison or at most a small number of comparisons can then be performed to accurately determine whether the two templates match, simultaneously compensating for rotation of the eye in both base images.”)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention of the instant application to perform the rotation (alignment) taught by Yu on the cornea features of Ivanisov.
The motivation for doing so, as described above by Yu, would have been to make the matching more accurate and faster. Further, one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as described above by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Ivanisov with the above teaching of Yu to fully disclose, “aligning the detected birefringent cornea features with birefringent cornea features of an expected eye representation;”.
Ivanisov in view of Yu further disclose, “determining, by matching the detected birefringent cornea features with the expected birefringent cornea features, whether the detected birefringent cornea features are correctly rendered in the captured image; and if so: determining that the eye is a real eye.” (Ivonisov, Paragraph 70-71, “Step 920 comprises comparing, or scoring intra-pair similarities corresponding to, at least two of the following pairs: (i) a first pair (TN, FN) comprising the first set of image information (TN) and the third set of image information (FN); (ii) a second pair (TN, FP) comprising the first set of image information (TN) and the fourth set of image information (FP); (iii) a third pair (TP,FN) comprising the second set of image information (TP) and the third set of image information (FN); (iv) a fourth pair (TP,FP) comprising the second set of image information (TP) and the fourth set of image information (FP); (v) a fifth pair (TN,TP) comprising the first set of image information (TN) and the second set of image information (TP); and (vi) a sixth pair (FN, FP) comprising the third set of image information (FN) and the fourth set of image information (FP).”; “Step 922 comprises using the comparisons or similarity scores generated at step 920, for (i) determining whether the candidate eye is live or non-live or (ii) generating a positive identity match decision (i.e. a match decision) between the candidate eye and the biometric templates TN and/or TP or (iii) generating a negative identity match decision (i.e. a non-match decision) between the candidate eye and the biometric templates TN and/or TP or (iv) denying or rejecting an authentication request or authentication attempt based on the candidate eye.” Note that determining if the eye is real based on matching amounts to determining if the detected birefringent cornea features are correctly rendered.)
Regarding claim 4, Ivanisov in view of Yu teaches “The method of claim 1,”
“the aligning being performed by rotating the captured representation of the eye such that the captured eye representation has a same orientation as a non-tilted expected eye representation or by rotating the non-tilted expected eye representation to have the same eye orientation as the captured eye representation.” (Yu, Paragraph 43, “In another embodiment of step 206, a template is generated from the original digital image and the calculated angle of relative rotation is stored in association with the template or as part of the template. This data indicating the angle of presentation of the eye is used as an input to an iris matching engine to guide the matching engine in performing more efficient rotational comparisons. In the prior art, iris matching engines typically performed a series of rotational comparisons within a predetermined range, without regard to how the eye may have been presented in the image. In this embodiment, rather than performing a standard series of relative rotational comparisons, a modified matching engine is provided wherein the rotational compensation function of the matching engine can be set to compensate for the measured rotation of that specific image. The measured rotations of the images from which the two templates were generated may be summed to determine a relative rotation of the images from which the two templates were generated. That relative rotation is implemented by the matching engine which rotates the templates to match the relative eye rotation of the base images. In this manner, a single comparison or at most a small number of comparisons can then be performed to accurately determine whether the two templates match, simultaneously compensating for rotation of the eye in both base images.” Note that this was incorporated with motivation and rationale in the rejection of claim 1. As the references are combined, the rotating of Yu is performed on the TP (expected) or FP (captured/candidate) image data of Ivanisov such that the orientation of one image data is rotated to match the non-tilted other image data.)
Regarding claim 9, claim 9 describes a computer program product comprising a non-transitory medium with for performing the steps recited in claim 1. Therefore, the recited instructions of this claim are mapped to the analogous steps in the corresponding method claim. The rationale and motivation to combine the Ivanisov and Yu references are applied here. Additionally, the combination of Ivanisov in view of Yu disclose “A computer program product comprising a non- transitory computer readable medium, the computer readable medium having a computer program embodied thereon, the computer program comprising computer-executable instructions for causing a biometric recognition system to perform the method of claim 1 when the computer-executable instructions are executed on a processing unit included in the biometric recognition system.” (Ivanisov, Figure 10 and Paragraphs 83-85, “In addition to the above described apparatuses and methods, the invention additionally provides computer program products configured for implementing the methods of the present invention. A computer program product in accordance with the present invention may comprise computer readable instructions stored on a transitory or non-transitory computer readable medium, and may include instructions for implementing one or more methods in accordance with the teachings of the present invention. FIG. 10 illustrates an exemplary computing system for implementing the present invention. The computing system 1002 comprises one or more processors 1004 and at least one memory 1006. Processor 1004 is configured to execute program instructions—and may be a real processor or a virtual processor. It will be understood that computer system 1002 does not suggest any limitation as to scope of use or functionality of described embodiments. The computer system 1002 may include, but is not be limited to, one or more of a general-purpose computer, a programmed microprocessor, a micro-controller, an integrated circuit, and other devices or arrangements of devices that are capable of implementing the steps that constitute the method of the present invention. Exemplary embodiments of a system 1002 in accordance with the present invention may include one or more servers, desktops, laptops, tablets, smart phones, mobile phones, mobile communication devices, tablets, phablets and personal digital assistants. In an embodiment of the present invention, the memory 1006 may store software for implementing various embodiments of the present invention. The computer system 1002 may have additional components. For example, the computer system 1002 may include one or more communication channels 1008, one or more input devices 1010, one or more output devices 1012, and storage 1014. An interconnection mechanism (not shown) such as a bus, controller, or network, interconnects the components of the computer system 1002. In various embodiments of the present invention, operating system software (not shown) provides an operating environment for various softwares executing in the computer system 1002 using a processor 1004, and manages different functionalities of the components of the computer system 1002.”)
Regarding claims 10 and 13, these claims recite a biometric recognition system including a polarization-sensitive camera with elements corresponding to the steps recited in Claims 1 and 4. Therefore, the recited elements of this claim are mapped to the analogous steps in the corresponding method claim. Additionally, the rationale and motivation to combine the references apply here. Finally, the combination of Ivanisov in view of Yu disclose a biometric recognition system including a polarization-sensitive camera (Ivanisov, Figure 2).
Claim(s) 2 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ivanisov in view of Yu further in view of Zhang (US20210068655A1).
Regarding claim 2, Ivanisov in view of Yu teaches “The method of claim 1,”
While Ivanisov in view of Yu teaches wherein the polarization of light is caused by emitting light through a first polarizer and polarization sensitivity of the camera being caused by reflection of polarized light from the iris via a second polarizer (Ivanisov, Figure 2 and Paragraph 37, “FIG. 2 illustrates a first embodiment of an imaging apparatus configured for spoof detection—which in a particular embodiment, may be based on detection or evidence of birefringence. In the illustrated embodiment, the imaging apparatus comprises a first illuminator IL1.2 and a second illuminator IL2.2. In an embodiment, the imaging apparatus may have a first polarizing filter PF1.2 interposed in the optical path between the second illuminator IL2.2 and an intended image capture region (e.g. the intersection of the field of view and depth of field corresponding to the imaging camera IC). The imaging apparatus may additionally have a second polarizing filter PF2.2 interposed in the optical path between imaging camera IC and the intended image capture region. The first and second polarizing filters PF1.2 and PF2.2 may be positioned such that light emitted from the second illuminator IL2.2 and that is scattered off the subject's eye E and onto imaging camera IC, passes through both the first and second polarizing filters PF1.2 and PF2.2.”), Ivanisov in view of Yu does not disclose that the filters are circular.
Zhang teaches the use of circular filters in ocular imaging, (Zhang, Paragraph 65, “More preferably, the polarization analyzing structure 16 could be moved out of the optical path for some measurements like corneal topography. Experiments demonstrate that with linear cross polarizers in the illumination and detection systems, the recorded ocular surface image will present a pattern of the iris reflected light coupled with corneal birefringence, and a dark cross-shaped pattern or two separate dark hyperbolic arcs are observed, which are usually referred to as the “isogyre” patterns, and the isogyre pattern corresponds to the part where the polarization state of the incident light is almost unchanged after the cornea-iris-cornea reflected light pathway. In the corneal periphery, a series of colored quadrangular rings with rounded corners are presented, which are referred to as the “isochrome” rings. This is partly because the cornea retardance variation increases from the corneal center to the corneal periphery. If parallel linear polarizers are used in the illumination and detection systems, the recorded images present a complementary bright “isogyre” pattern to the previous case of cross polarizers, and a different set (a complementary set) of isochrome rings are recorded. When circular polarizers, instead of linear polarizers, are used, no isogyre patterns are present, but the isochrome rings at the corneal periphery are still present. Further, the ocular surface reflection will flip the handedness of the circular polarized incident light. When there is no polarization analyzing structure 16 in the optical path, the recorded images will not present conical birefringence, i.e. neither isogyres, nor isochrome patterns are present, which will simplify the corneal topography retrieval and improve measurement accuracy.”)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention of the instant application to replace the polarizing filters of Ivanisov in view of Yu with the circular polarizers of Zhang.
The motivation for doing so would have been to achieve the superior glare elimination of circular polarization compared to linear polarization. Further, one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as described above by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Ivanisov in view of Yu with the above teaching of Zhang to fully disclose “wherein the polarization of light is caused by: emitting light through a first polarization filter being circularly polarized; and the polarization sensitivity of the camera being caused by: receiving the polarized light reflected by the iris at the camera via a second polarization filter being circularly polarized.”
Regarding claim 11, this claim recites a system with elements corresponding to the steps recited in Claim 2. Therefore, the recited elements of this claim are mapped to the analogous steps in the corresponding method claim. Additionally, the rationale and motivation to combine the references apply here.
Claim(s) 3 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ivanisov in view of Yu further in view of Onuma (A development of two-dimensional birefringence distribution measurement system with a sampling rate of 1.3 MHz) further in view of Kudenov (US20140078298A1).
Regarding claim 3, Ivanisov in view of Yu teaches “The method of claim 1,”
While Ivanisov in view of Yu teach emitting light through a first polarization filter, receiving light reflected by the eye via another filter, and using the resulting image for detection of birefringent cornea features (Ivanisov, Figures 2 and 9B (in particular elements 914 and 918); also see rejection of claim 1.), Ivanisov in view of Yu does not teach “wherein the polarization of light is caused by: emitting light through a first polarization filter being circularly polarized; and the polarization sensitivity of the camera being caused by: receiving the polarized light reflected by the eye at the camera via a third polarization filter having 0° polarization, a fourth polarization filter having 45° polarization, a fifth polarization filter having 90° polarization and a sixth polarization filter having 135° polarization, each filter being aligned with an image sensor of the camera to enable simultaneous capturing of four differently polarized images comprising the representation of the eye of the individual, the capturing of the at least one image comprising a representation of an eye of the individual comprising: capturing four simultaneous images; computing Stokes parameters utilizing pixel intensity for each of the captured images; computing degree of linear polarization for each pixel utilizing the computed Stokes parameters; and creating a single image by assigning each pixel of the created image the intensity stipulated by the computed degree of linear polarization, from which created single image the birefringent cornea features are detected.”
Onuma discloses emitting light through a first polarizer being circularly polarized, and receiving polarized light at a camera via filters at 0°, 45°, 90°, and 135° polarization, the filters being aligned with an image sensor of the camera enabling simultaneous capture of four differently polarized images, followed by the capturing of the four images and computing Stokes parameters utilizing pixel intensity for each of the captured images (Onuma Figure 1 and entirety of section 2, with particular emphasis on equations 2 and 7).
Kudenov teaches computing degree of linear polarization for each pixel utilizing the computed Stokes parameters and creating a single image by assigning each pixel of the created image the intensity stipulated by the computed degree of linear polarization (Kudenov, Figure 23 and Paragraph 131, pasted below.)
PNG
media_image1.png
137
578
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
448
600
media_image2.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention of the instant application to replace the first and second polarizers of Ivanisov in view of Yu with the circular filter and filters at 0°, 45°, 90°, and 135° polarization respectively, as taught by Onuma, perform the image capturing and calculation of the Stokes parameters also taught by Onuma, then compute the degree of linear polarization based on the Stokes parameters and generate an image base on the degree of linear polarization, as taught by Kudenov, and use the resulting image to detect the birefringent cornea features of Ivanisov in view of Yu.
The motivation for doing so would have been because Ivanisov in view of Yu describes generally extracting birefringent features from an image based on an illuminator, filter, and camera configuration, but is silent on how the configuration actually generates an image with birefringent features to be detected. Therefore one skilled in the art would be motivated to incorporate these features of Onuma and Kudenov to obtain an image containing birefringent cornea features for the subsequent biometric authorization steps. Further, one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as described above by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Ivanisov in view of Yu with the above teachings from Onuma and Kudenov to fully disclose, “wherein the polarization of light is caused by: emitting light through a first polarization filter being circularly polarized; and the polarization sensitivity of the camera being caused by: receiving the polarized light reflected by the eye at the camera via a third polarization filter having 0° polarization, a fourth polarization filter having 45° polarization, a fifth polarization filter having 90° polarization and a sixth polarization filter having 135° polarization, each filter being aligned with an image sensor of the camera to enable simultaneous capturing of four differently polarized images comprising the representation of the eye of the individual, the capturing of the at least one image comprising a representation of an eye of the individual comprising: capturing four simultaneous images; computing Stokes parameters utilizing pixel intensity for each of the captured images; computing degree of linear polarization for each pixel utilizing the computed Stokes parameters; and creating a single image by assigning each pixel of the created image the intensity stipulated by the computed degree of linear polarization, from which created single image the birefringent cornea features are detected.”
Regarding claim 12, this claim recites a system with elements corresponding to the steps recited in Claim 3. Therefore, the recited elements of this claim are mapped to the analogous steps in the corresponding method claim. Additionally, the rationale and motivation to combine the references apply here.
Claim(s) 5 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ivanisov in view of Yu further in view of OFFICIAL NOTICE.
Regarding claim 5, Ivanisov in view of Yu teaches “The method of claim 1,”
Ivanisov in view of Yu do not expressly disclose, “wherein if after a set number of failed attempts have been made for determining that the birefringent features are correctly rendered in the captured image, the individual is required to prove knowledge of secret credentials before further attempts are allowed.”
The Examiner takes OFFICIAL NOTICE that the above claimed authentication strategy, namely requiring a password or secret credentials after a set number of failed attempts, in order to continue attempts, is well-known. For example, high security websites, such as banking websites, often require input of answers to security questions (‘what street did you grow up on’, ‘what was the name of your first pet’, etc.) after failed login attempts in order to continue attempting to login. One skilled in the art would understand that this strategy exists and has utility.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention of the instant application to request secret information following a set number of failed login/authentication attempts in order to continue login/authentication attempts, taught by OFFICIAL NOTICE, with respect to the birefringent feature-based login/authentication of Ivanisov in view of Yu.
The motivation for doing so would have been to enable authentication in situations such as poor lighting conditions and/or eye disease, that may cause the user to need more login attempts than usual. Further, one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as described above by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Ivanisov in view of Yu with the above teaching from OFFICIAL NOTICE to fully disclose, “wherein if after a set number of failed attempts have been made for determining that the birefringent features are correctly rendered in the captured image, the individual is required to prove knowledge of secret credentials before further attempts are allowed.”
Regarding claim 14, this claim recites a system with elements corresponding to the steps recited in Claim 5. Therefore, the recited elements of this claim are mapped to the analogous steps in the corresponding method claim. Additionally, the rationale and motivation to combine the references apply here.
Claim(s) 6 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ivanisov in view of Yu further in view of Tussy (US20190213312A1).
Regarding claim 6, Ivanisov in view of Yu teaches “The method of claim 1,”
While Ivanisov in view of Yu disclose the comparison of the detected birefringent cornea features with previously enrolled birefringent cornea features for matching-based authentication of the individual (Ivanisov, Figures 9A-9B, Paragraph 70-71, “Step 920 comprises comparing, or scoring intra-pair similarities corresponding to, at least two of the following pairs: (i) a first pair (TN, FN) comprising the first set of image information (TN) and the third set of image information (FN); (ii) a second pair (TN, FP) comprising the first set of image information (TN) and the fourth set of image information (FP); (iii) a third pair (TP,FN) comprising the second set of image information (TP) and the third set of image information (FN); (iv) a fourth pair (TP,FP) comprising the second set of image information (TP) and the fourth set of image information (FP); (v) a fifth pair (TN,TP) comprising the first set of image information (TN) and the second set of image information (TP); and (vi) a sixth pair (FN, FP) comprising the third set of image information (FN) and the fourth set of image information (FP). Step 922 comprises using the comparisons or similarity scores generated at step 920, for (i) determining whether the candidate eye is live or non-live or (ii) generating a positive identity match decision (i.e. a match decision) between the candidate eye and the biometric templates TN and/or TP or (iii) generating a negative identity match decision (i.e. a non-match decision) between the candidate eye and the biometric templates TN and/or TP or (iv) denying or rejecting an authentication request or authentication attempt based on the candidate eye.”), and Ivanisov in view of Yu additionally disclose the determination of detected birefringent cornea features as correctly rendered (see claim 1 rejection), Ivanisov in view of Yu does not expressly disclose performing the individual authentication based on matching after the determination of detected birefringent cornea features as correctly rendered.
Tussy teaches liveness detection as a pre-requisite for, and followed by, identify matching (Tussy, Paragraph 253, “It is also contemplated the liveness determination may occur in all of these embodiments as part of the authentication. While identity verification against trusted root identity information is a valuable part of the process, so to is liveness determination. As such it is contemplated that identity verification may occur independently, liveness determination may occur independently, or both may occur as part of a verification session. In one embodiment and as discussed above, the liveness detection is a comparison between two images of the user captured at different distances between the user and the camera (due to a change in distance between the camera and the user from either camera movement, user movement, or both). In one embodiment, the liveness detection occurs before identity verification. It may serve as a pre-requisite that must successfully occur before identity verification will be attempted. In one example embodiment, the liveness detection occurs as is described herein. If the process determines that other than a live person is conducting the authentication attempt, then the authentication session ends and no additional biometric information is collected, and the trusted root identity information is not downloaded and compared, or the biometric information captured by the smart device is not uploaded to the authentication server or the root identity server. Alternatively, if the liveness determination determines that the person conducting the authentication session is a live person, then either root biometric information is retrieved from root biometric server or the biometric information collected during the authentication is uploaded to the authentication server or root identity server for identity verification. Using the liveness termination as a prerequisite before identity verification provides several benefits. On benefit is an elimination of personal biometric data information over the network, reduced bandwidth usage, faster authentication session conclusion, and less burden on processing resources of the authentication server or the root identity server, which in turn saves costs by requiring less network and server resources.”)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention of the instant application to perform the individual authentication of Ivanisov in view of Yu using features already determined to be correctly rendered (determined to be real/live) by Ivanisov in view of Yu, in accordance with the sequential configuration taught by Tussy.
The motivation for doing so would have been to separate specific causes of failure (eye is not real/live vs. eye does not match database), for a) providing the user with an accurate error message and b) logging types of security breach events. Further, one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as described above by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Ivanisov in view of Yu with the above teaching of Tussy to fully disclose, “further comprising: comparing the detected birefringent cornea features determined to be correctly rendered with previously enrolled birefringent cornea features; and if there is a match: authenticating an individual associated with the birefringent cornea features determined to be correctly rendered.”
Regarding claim 15, this claim recites a system with elements corresponding to the steps recited in Claim 6. Therefore, the recited elements of this claim are mapped to the analogous steps in the corresponding method claim. Additionally, the rationale and motivation to combine the references apply here.
Claim(s) 7 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ivanisov in view of Yu further in view of Kanamori (US20190266399A1).
Regarding claim 7, Ivanisov in view of Yu teaches “The method of claim 1,”
“further comprising: detecting, from the image in which the birefringent cornea features are determined to be correctly rendered or from another captured image, iris, face or periocular features; (Ivanisov, Paragraph 36, “In an embodiment of the invention, (i) if illuminator IL in FIG. 1B is polarized (or can be selectively activated to emit polarized wavelengths) and camera IC has pixels which exhibit responses that vary according to polarization characteristics of incident light (or can be activated in a mode where pixel responses vary according to polarization characteristics of incident light), and (ii) if a specific (or predefined) type of iris pattern(s) or iris texture is observed in images of an eye or iris that are acquired in response to activation of the polarized light source IL and simultaneous activation of polarization of the imaging camera IC—the invention enables the conclusion that the imaged eye is a real eye. If on the other hand, the expected type of iris pattern(s) or iris texture is not observed under the above conditions, the invention enables the conclusion that the imaged eye is a fake eye.”)
Ivanisov in view of Yu do not expressly disclose, “and comparing the detected iris, face or periocular features with previously enrolled iris, face or periocular features; and if there is a match an individual associated with the detected iris, face or periocular features is authenticated.”
Kanamori teaches, “and comparing the detected iris, face or periocular features with previously enrolled iris, face or periocular features; and if there is a match an individual associated with the detected iris, face or periocular features is authenticated.” (Kanamori, Figures 16-17 and Paragraph 164, “Next, in step S604, iris authenticator 16 calculates Hamming distance IRIS_DIST between real part IR for authentication and imaginary part II for authentication, and reference real part IRR and reference imaginary part IIR. Iris authenticator 16 outputs Hamming distances between real part IR for authentication and imaginary part II for authentication, and various reference real parts IRR and reference imaginary parts IIR to integrator 17 as authentication results. In this way, iris authenticator 16 calculates a distance between the real part and the imaginary part between the image taken by camera 30 and the iris authentication information, which is the iris authentication process.” As described in Paragraphs 162-163, the II and IR correspond to iris features of candidate images while the IRR and IIR correspond to previously enrolled iris features. Figure 17 shows the downstream matching responsive to these authentication results.)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention of the instant application to perform the iris-based comparison and authentication of Kanamori based on the iris features extracted by Ivanisov in view of Yu.
The motivation for doing so would have been to incorporate an added layer of security (iris-based authentication) in addition to the cornea-based authentication. Further, one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as described above by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Ivanisov in view of Yu with the above teaching of Kanamori to fully disclose the invention of claim 7.
Regarding claim 16, this claim recites a system with elements corresponding to the steps recited in Claim 7. Therefore, the recited elements of this claim are mapped to the analogous steps in the corresponding method claim. Additionally, the rationale and motivation to combine the references apply here.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AARON JOSEPH SORRIN whose telephone number is (703)756-1565. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9am - 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, Sumati Lefkowitz can be reached at (571) 272-3638. 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.
/AARON JOSEPH SORRIN/
Examiner, Art Unit 2672
/SUMATI LEFKOWITZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2672
Prosecution Insights