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 Preliminary Amendment
In response to applicant’s amendment received on 12/10/24, all requested changes to the specification and drawings have been accepted and entered.
Specification - Title
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
Specification - Abstract
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it currently comprises two paragraphs. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Information Disclosure Statement
The listing of references in the specification (paragraphs 03 and 37) is not a proper information disclosure statement. 37 CFR 1.98(b) requires a list of all patents, publications, or other information submitted for consideration by the Office, and MPEP § 609.04(a) states, "the list may not be incorporated into the specification but must be submitted in a separate paper." Therefore, unless the references have been cited by the examiner on form PTO-892, they have not been considered.
The information disclosure statement filed 12/10/24 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(2), which requires a legible copy of each cited foreign patent document; each non-patent literature publication or that portion which caused it to be listed; and all other information or that portion which caused it to be listed. It has been considered except where lined through. Specifically, no copies provided for citations 1, 2, 4 and 6 under the section “FOREIGN PATENT DOCUMENTS”.
Claim Interpretation – 112(f)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“a processing unit that detects…” in claims 1-4, 7, 10 and 11; and
“an authentication unit that performs… in claim 12.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
Regarding a “processing unit” the corresponding structure described in the specification is a computer implementing the functions as a program/algorithm (paragraphs 18 and 41-51). Therefore according to MPEP 2181(II)(B), the entire algorithm disclosed in paragraphs 17 and 19-25 is also considered be included in the structure covered by the interpretation. That algorithm includes excluding a region from face detection by detecting geometrically shaped contour lines surrounding a face (paragraph 17), by detecting a planar region based on distance or range (paragraph 24) and by detecting optical features such as reflection (paragraph 24).
Regarding an “authentication unit” the corresponding structure described in the specification is a computer implementing the functions as a program/algorithm (paragraphs 18 and 41-51). Therefore according to MPEP 2181(II)(B), the entire algorithm disclosed in paragraphs 26-35, in which a match is made between features of the detected face and those of a registered face, is also considered be included in the structure covered by the interpretation.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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- 4 and 6-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2016/0335483 to Pfursich et al. (“Pfursich”).
Regarding claim 1, the Examiner notes that the limitation “processing unit that detects…” invokes 112(f) interpretation and the corresponding structure described in the specification is a computer implementing the functions as a program/algorithm (paragraphs 18 and 41-51). Therefore, according to MPEP 2181(II)(B), the entire algorithm disclosed in paragraphs 17 and 19-25 is also considered be included in the structure covered by the interpretation. That algorithm includes excluding a region from face detection by detecting geometrically shaped contour lines surrounding a face (paragraph 17), by detecting a planar region based on distance or range (paragraph 24) and by detecting optical features such as reflection (paragraph 24).
Pfursich discloses an information processing device comprising:
a processing unit (Fig. 20 and paragraphs 132-135, wherein a processor executing stored instructions corresponds to the computer structure of a “processing unit”) that detects, as an excluded region, a region in which face detection is not to be performed, in an image region of a photographed image obtained by an imaging device (Fig. 19 and paragraphs 117-129, wherein a region of an image with a potential face is excluded from face detection (i.e. excluded from being detected as face that is added to the set of faces detected for authentication analysis), when the region fails liveness tests. As part of the liveness testing, Pfursich discloses detecting geometrically shaped contour lines surrounding a potential face (paragraphs 41, 104, 128), detecting a plane or planar region based on distance or range associated with the region (Fig. 6 and paragraphs 71, 122) and detecting optical features such as reflectivity of the region (Figs. 4, 5a, 5b; paragraphs 58, 59, 65-70, 123 and 124)), and that detects a face image from a face detection target region that is a region other than the excluded region in the image region of the photographed image (Fig. 19 and paragraphs 117-129, wherein the face image is considered to be detected when it passes the liveness tests and therefore considered a region other than the excluded regions).
Regarding claim 2, Pfursich discloses the information processing device according to claim 1, wherein the processing unit detects, as the excluded region, a region in which a face image of a person as a real person is not included, in the image region of the photographed image (Fig. 19 and paragraphs 117-129, wherein the excluded region corresponds to a non-live person (i.e. region in which a real person is not included) in the image).
Regarding claim 3, Pfursich discloses the information processing device according to claim 1, wherein the processing unit detects, as the excluded region, a region having a feature of a photograph (Figs. 2-6 and 19; paragraphs 117-129, wherein the liveness test detects, as an excluded region, a region having the features of a displayed photograph).
Regarding claim 4, Pfursich discloses the information processing device according to claim 1, wherein the processing unit detects, as the excluded region, a region having a feature of a presentation medium for presenting an image (Figs. 2-6 and 19; paragraphs 117-129, wherein the liveness test detects, as an excluded region, a region having the features of a screen displaying photograph (i.e. presentation medium)).
Regarding claim 6, Pfursich discloses the information processing device according to claim 4, wherein the presentation medium includes an electronic medium (Figs. 2-6 and 19; paragraphs 117-129, wherein the liveness test detects, as an excluded region, a region having the features of a, electronic screen displaying photograph).
Regarding claim 7, Pfursich discloses the information processing device according to claim 1, wherein the processing unit detects, as the excluded region, a region surrounded by a geometrically shaped contour line (paragraphs 41, 104, 128, wherein detecting, as an excluded region, a region having geometrically shaped contour lines surrounding a potential face).
Regarding claim 8, Pfursich discloses the information processing device according to claim 7, wherein the contour line has continuous line segments (paragraphs 41, 104, 128, wherein detecting, as an excluded region, a region having continuous contour lines surrounding a potential face).
Regarding claim 9, Pfursich discloses the information processing device according to claim 7, wherein the contour line has a rectangular, elliptical, or polygonal shape (Figs. 2-6; paragraphs 41, 104, 128, wherein the contour lines enclosing/surrounding form a rectangle as seen in figures 2-6).
Regarding claim 10, Pfursich discloses the information processing device according to The information processing device according to wherein the processing unit detects, as the excluded region, a region in the photographed image corresponding to a planar region existing in a space (Fig. 6 and paragraphs 71, 122, wherein detecting, as the excluded region, a region having a constant plane (i.e. planar region) based on distance or range associated with the region).
Regarding claim 11, Pfursich discloses the information processing device according to claim 1, wherein the processing unit detects, as the excluded region, a region in the photographed image corresponding to a region in which an optical feature in a space is different from those of other regions (Figs. 4, 5a, 5b; paragraphs 58, 59, 65-70, 123 and 124, wherein detecting, as an excluded region, a region having optical features, such as reflectivity of the region, different from other region).
Regarding claim 12, Pfursich discloses the information processing device according to claim 1, comprising:
an authentication unit (Fig. 20 and paragraphs 132-135, wherein a processor executing stored instructions corresponds to the computer structure of a “authentication unit”) that performs face authentication on a basis of the face image detected by the processing unit and a face image of a registered person registered in advance (Fig. 19, paragraphs 03, 130-131, wherein the detected face is subjected to facial authentication by comparison with registered faces).
Regarding claim 13, Pfursich discloses an information processing method of an information processing device having a processing unit, the method comprising:
by the processing unit (Fig. 20 and paragraphs 132-135, wherein a processor executing stored instructions corresponds to the “processing unit”), detecting, as an excluded region, a region in which face detection is not to be performed, in an image region of a photographed image obtained by an imaging device (Fig. 19 and paragraphs 117-129, wherein a region of an image with a potential face is excluded from face detection (i.e. excluded from being detected as face that is added to the set of faces detected for authentication analysis), when the region fails liveness tests), and detecting a face image from a face detection target region that is a region other than the excluded region in the image region of the photographed image (Fig. 19 and paragraphs 117-129, wherein the face image is considered to be detected when it passes the liveness tests and therefore considered a region other than the excluded regions).
Regarding claim 14, Pfursich discloses a computer-readable recording medium that records a program to cause a computer to function as a processing unit (Fig. 20 and paragraphs 132-135, wherein the storage device corresponds to the medium that records a program or instructions executed by a processor/computer and corresponds to the “processing unit”) that detects, as an excluded region, a region in which face detection is not to be performed, in an image region of a photographed image obtained by an imaging device (Fig. 19 and paragraphs 117-129, wherein a region of an image with a potential face is excluded from face detection (i.e. excluded from being detected as face that is added to the set of faces detected for authentication analysis), when the region fails liveness tests), and that detects a face image from a face detection target region that is a region other than the excluded region in the image region of the photographed image (Fig. 19 and paragraphs 117-129, wherein the face image is considered to be detected when it passes the liveness tests and therefore considered a region other than the excluded regions).
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 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2016/0335483 to Pfursich et al. (“Pfursich”) in view of USPN 11,341,225 to Joshi et al. (“Joshi”).
Regarding claim 5, Pfursich discloses the information processing device according to claim 4.
Pfursich does not disclose expressly that the presentation medium includes a paper medium.
Joshi discloses a similar process of presenting a paper medium comprising a face region and excluding the region from further processing (column 6, line 26 – column 7, line 10).
Pfursich & Joshi are combinable because they are from the same art of face detection in an image.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the technique presenting a paper medium for potential face detection, as taught by Joshi, into the process for detecting regions to exclude from face detection as disclosed by Pfursich.
The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to provide alternative representations of a face and testing those for spoof detection in biometric authentication (Joshi, column 6, line 26 – column 7, line 10).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Joshi with Pfursich to obtain the invention as specified in claim 5.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See attached PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AARON W CARTER whose telephone number is (571)272-7445. The examiner can normally be reached 8am - 5pm (Mon - Fri).
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, John Villecco can be reached at (571) 272-7319. 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 W CARTER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2661
Prosecution Insights