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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 10/17/2024 and 03/30/2026 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, these information disclosure statements have been considered by the examiner.
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, 2, 5-8, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by the NPL “Iris Recognition System for Secure Authentication Based on Texture and Shape Features” to Albadarneh et al, hereinafter referred to as “Albadarneh.”
With respect to claim 1, Albadarneh discloses an information processing device comprising: a storage medium configured to store instructions; and a processor configured to execute the instructions to (see Section “V. Experimental Results”): select multiple different sub-regions from among sub-regions including at least a portion of an iris region based on features of an eye of a target included in an acquired image (see Figure 4 and Figure 5 - iris is divided into four subregions - upper left, upper right, lower left and lower right); calculate features of the respective different sub-regions (see page 4, directly under Figure 3 where the Authentication phase takes an iris image of a user and divides the image into four blocks and then store the respective features); calculate similarity between pre-stored features (see Enrollment phase on page 4, right-hand column) and the respective different sub-regions based on the features of the respective different sub-regions and the pre-stored features; and authenticate the target based on the similarity of the respective different sub-regions (see top of page 5 - “If match - identity is verifies”).
With respect to claim 2, Albadarneh discloses the information processing device according to claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to execute the instructions to select the multiple different sub-regions having different central positions (see Figure 5).
With respect to claim 5, Albadarneh discloses the information processing device according to claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to execute the instructions to select multiple different sub-regions comprising a sub-region including a region within a range of an eyeball and a sub-region including a region around the eyeball (as broadly claimed, see Figure 4 and Figure 5)
With respect to claim 6, Albadarneh discloses the information processing device according to claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to execute the instructions to select the multiple different sub-regions including feature points around an eyeball of the eye (See Figure 5).
With respect to claim 7, Albadarneh discloses the information processing device according to claim 1, wherein, in the acquired image, a region of a specific part of the eye is normalized based on at least one of a defined orientation or a defined size (see page 3, section “B. Image Preprocessing”).
Claim 8 and Claim 11 are rejected for reasoning, mutatis mutandis, as that of claim 1 above. Furthermore, the claimed storage medium and processor of claim 8 are disclosed in Albadarneh in the paragraph just below Figure 3 and in the Experimental Results section V.
Claims 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by JPH11213163A, hereinafter referred to as “JP’163.”
With respect to claim 1, the English abstract of JP’163 discloses an information processing device comprising: a storage medium configured to store instructions; and a processor configured to execute the instructions to: select multiple different sub-regions from among sub-regions including at least a portion of an iris region (see Figure 3) based on features of an eye of a target included in an acquired image; calculate features of the respective different sub-regions (area dividing means 3); calculate similarity between pre-stored features and the respective different sub-regions based on the features of the respective different sub-regions and the pre-stored features (“dictionary” set forth in abstract compares matching degree with the divided plural areas of Figure 3); and authenticate the target based on the similarity of the respective different sub-regions.
With respect to claim 2, JP’163 discloses the information processing device according to claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to execute the instructions to select the multiple different sub-regions having different central positions (see Figure 3).
With respect to claim 3, JP’163 discloses the information processing device according to claim 2, wherein the processor is configured to execute the instructions to select the multiple different sub-regions having different sizes (see Figure 3).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP’163 in view of JP2002032812, hereinafter referred to as “JP’812.”
With respect to claim 4, JP’163 discloses an iris authentication method as noted above with claim 1. However, JP’163 fails to disclose multiple different sub-regions having the same central position and having different sizes (Figure 3 of JP’163 discloses the iris divided into multiple sub-regions with different sizes, but not the same central position).
On the other hand, JP’812 discloses an authentication device for disc-shaped objects (a coin in this instance) wherein in Figure 6 there are shown multiple concentric sub-regions each having a different size. Feature data of each concentric circle is used to compare to standard data to verify the identity of the coin.
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have replaced the sub-regions described in Figure 3 of JP’163 with the concentric sub-regions disclosed in Figure 6 of JP’812 with the rationale being that circular objects (in this case an iris for JP’163 and a coin for JP’812) can be recognized “irrespective of the rotating position of the subject” (see abstract of JP’812). Considering that the circular iris of a user rarely aligns exactly square to the iris camera (the user can tilt his/her head to one side or the other, etc), one of ordinary skill in the art would have found the teachings of JP’812 regarding the concentric circles sub-regions very relevant to overcoming the circular positioning errors of the user’s iris with the camera. This would result in a more accurate authentication of the user.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The cited prior art discloses the general state of the art surrounding authentication of individuals via the use of iris recognition systems/methods.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID OMETZ whose telephone number is (571)272-7593. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8am-4pm.
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.
DAVID OMETZ
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2672
/DAVID OMETZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2672
Prosecution Insights