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 .
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 6, 9-12, 24 and 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abiko (US 2010/0002914) in view of Kim et al. (US 2020/0218868).
In regard to claim 1, Abiko teaches a method for enrollment of a biometric presentation for a biometric security system (paragraph 109), the method comprising: capturing and processing a plurality of images of the biometric presentation to produce a plurality of candidate images (fig. 2A and paragraph 37) ; forming, and storing in memory of the biometric security system, a Gallery Set of gallery images from at least some of the plurality of candidate images based on a matching of the plurality of candidate images (paragraph 40, storing a successively captured partial images); and determining, and storing in the memory of the biometric security system, a Gallery Web from the Gallery Set, the Gallery Web comprising correlation data defining correlations between the gallery images of the Gallery Set (see fig. 4, the payload data stores image data and data such as a time stamp) but does not teach wherein the correlation data is determined by at least one of comparing each gallery image to other gallery images or comparing metadata about each gallery image to metadata about other gallery images.
Kim et al. teach wherein the correlation data is determined by at least one of comparing each gallery image to other gallery images or comparing metadata about each gallery image to metadata about other gallery images (fig. 9 element 940 and paragraphs 100-101).
The two are analogous art because they both deal with the same field of invention of fingerprint detection.
Before the effective filing date it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the apparatus of Abiko with the correlation data of Kim et al. The rationale is as follows: Before the effective filing date it would have been obvious to provide the apparatus Abiko with the correlation data of Kim et al. because providing the data of Kim et al. would allow the device to more accurately determine the fingerprint area and would improve detection accuracy.
In regard to claim 2, Abiko teaches wherein forming the Gallery Set from at least some of the plurality of candidate images based on a matching of the plurality of candidate images comprises, for each given candidate image of at least a subset of the plurality of candidate images, determining whether to add the given candidate image to the Gallery Set based on a comparison of the given candidate image with each of one or more gallery images of the Gallery Set (paragraph 71 and fig. 10. Abiko teaches discarding partial images when they are within a threshold distance).
In regard to claim 6, Abiko teaches wherein the correlation data comprises positional information for each of the gallery images, the positional information for a given gallery image corresponding to a spatial region of the biometric presentation to which the given gallery image pertains (paragraph 40, storing relative positions of partial images).
In regard to claim 9, Abiko teaches wherein each of the candidate images comprises at least one of image data or metadata corresponding to a respective one of the plurality of images of the biometric presentation captured (fig. 4 and paragraph 40).
In regard to claim 10, Abiko teaches wherein each of the candidate images comprises biometric template data corresponding to a respective one of the plurality of images of the biometric presentation captured (see fig. 4, Abiko matches the image data with the metadata (template data is described as metadata in applicant’s specification paragraph 24)).
In regard to claim 11, Abiko teaches wherein each of the gallery images comprises at least one of image data or metadata corresponding to a respective one of the plurality of images of the biometric presentation captured (fig. 4 and paragraph 40).
In regard to claim 12, Abiko teaches wherein each of the gallery images comprises biometric template data corresponding to a respective one of the plurality of images of the biometric presentation captured (see fig. 4, Abiko matches the image data with the metadata (template data is described as metadata in applicant’s specification paragraph 24)).
In regard to claim 24, Abiko and Kim et al. teach all the elements of claim 24 (see claim 1 rejection above) including a computer readable storage medium (Abiko paragraph 36).
In regard to claim 25, Abiko and Kim et al. teach all the elements of claim 25 (see claim 1 rejection above) including a camera module configured to capture images of biometric presentations (element 10 and paragraph 35, Abiko teaches an optical image sensor (camera)).
Claim(s) 3-5, 7 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abiko in view of Kim et al. further considered with Niaf et al. (US 2020/0082149).
In regard to claim 3, Abiko and Kim et al. teach all the elements of claim 3 except wherein the comparison of the given candidate image with each of the one or more gallery images of the Gallery Set comprises matching the given candidate image with each of the one or more gallery images of the Gallery Set to generate one or more respective match scores.
Niaf et al. teach wherein the comparison of the given candidate image with each of the one or more gallery images of the Gallery Set comprises matching the given candidate image with each of the one or more gallery images of the Gallery Set to generate one or more respective match scores (fig. 2 and paragraph 51, Niaf et al. show constructing a complete set of images using matching scores between partial images).
The three are analogous art because they all deal with the same field of invention of fingerprint detection.
Before the effective filing date it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the apparatus of Abiko and Kim et al. with the score matching of Niaf et al. The rationale is as follows: Before the effective filing date it would have been obvious to provide the apparatus of Abiko and Kim et al. with the score matching of Niaf et al. because the matching score of Niaf et al. would work equally as well in the apparatus of Abiko and Kim et al. as it does separately. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the score combination of Niaf et al. would provide predictable results and would improve the recreation of the entire image.
In regard to claim 4, Niaf et al. teach adding the given candidate image to the Gallery Set where the one or more match scores are each less than or equal to a maximum match threshold (paragraph 75, Niaf et al. show if the association scores of the images exceed a maximum threshold the images are not respositioned).
In regard to claim 5, Niaf et al. teach determining whether to replace a given gallery image with the given candidate image where a match score between the given candidate image and the given gallery image is greater than the maximum match threshold (paragraph 75, when the association is greater than a maximum threshold the alignment score is set to 0).
In regard to claim 7, Niaf et al. teach wherein generating the Gallery Web from the Gallery Set comprises comparing each of the gallery images with one another to generate respective match scores (fig. 2 and paragraph 51, Niaf et al. show constructing a complete set of images using matching scores between partial images).
In regard to claim 8, Niaf et al. teach wherein the correlation data comprises at least one of: the match scores or data derived from the match scores (see fig. 4 and paragraphs 68-72. Niaf et al. show using the match scores to reconstruct the image).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 JOSEPH R HALEY whose telephone number is (571)272-0574. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30am-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, 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.
/JOSEPH R HALEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2621
Prosecution Insights