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 .
In the response to this Office Action, the Examiner respectfully requests that support be shown for language added to any original claims on amendment and any new claims. That is, indicate support for newly added claim language by specifically pointing to page(s) and line numbers in the specification and/or drawing figure(s). This will assist the Examiner in prosecuting this application.
Information Disclosure Statement (IDS)
No IDS has been filed for this application. Applicant is reminded of the duty to
disclose from section 2100 of the MPEP:
37 C.F.R. 1.56; Duty to disclose information material to patentability.
A patent by its very nature is affected with a public interest. The public interest is best served, and the most effective patent examination occurs when, at the time an application is being examined, the Office is aware of and evaluates the teachings of all information material to patentability. Each individual associated with the filing and prosecution of a patent application has a duty of candor and good faith in dealing with the Office, which includes a duty to disclose to the Office all information known to that individual to be material to patentability as defined in this section.
CLAIM INTERPRETATION
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 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. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: a collection component . 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. Therefore, the afore-mentioned claim limitation(s) is/are interpreted as a fingerprint sensor during prosecution of the instant application.
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.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent Application Publication 2019/0362172 A1 to Chien et al. (hereinafter "Chien").
Regarding Claim 10, Chien teaches a collection device comprising: a collection area; and a collection component (Fig. 1; Para. 24 of Chien; electronic device comprises a fingerprint sensor 10, a display 20, a processor 30, and a storage medium 40 storing the codes that the processor 30 requires to perform the fingerprint enrollment process. The processor 30 is coupled to the fingerprint sensor 10, the display 20, and the storage medium 40. The fingerprint sensor 10 is configured to sense the fingerprint of a finger and has a size smaller than the finger) configured to obtain a plurality of collected images based on one or more target configuration parameters, the one or more target configuration parameters, when applied to the collection device, enabling the collection device to obtain an image that meets a clarity condition when an operation body moves in the collection area; and determine two or more of the plurality of collected images that represent a target movement trajectory matching a target spiral as target collected images (Figs. 2A-10; Para. 30-46 of Chien; If the user follows above instruction to move the finger on the fingerprint sensor 10 in a spiral path, the fingerprint sensor 10 senses the finger multiple times during the movement of the finger on the fingerprint sensor 10. Thereby a plurality of fingerprint images 60 can be acquired, as shown in FIG. 10… when the processor 30 determines that the M quailed fingerprint images are acquired or the number of times that the finger touches the fingerprint sensor 10 reaches N, the fingerprint sensor 10 stops sensing the fingerprint. If the fingerprint enrollment method used by the user is moving the finger on the fingerprint sensor 10 in a spiral path, the processor 30 will first determine that the M qualified fingerprint images have been acquired (i.e. the determination in step S30 is YES) and then ends the enrollment process).
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 of this title, 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.
Claims 1, 9, 11, and 19-20 are rejected 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication 2019/0362172 A1 to Chien et al. (hereinafter "Chien") in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication 2006/0285729 A1 to Kim et al. (hereinafter "Kim").
Regarding Claim1 , Chien teaches a collection method comprising: obtaining, through a collection area of a collection device, a plurality of collected images based on one or more target configuration parameters, the one or more target configuration parameters, when applied to the collection device (Abstract; Claim 1, 14; Fig. 1; Para. 24 of Chien; electronic device comprises a fingerprint sensor 10, a display 20, a processor 30, and a storage medium 40 storing the codes that the processor 30 requires to perform the fingerprint enrollment process. The processor 30 is coupled to the fingerprint sensor 10, the display 20, and the storage medium 40. The fingerprint sensor 10 is configured to sense the fingerprint of a finger and has a size smaller than the finger… During the fingerprint enrollment process, a user inputs a fingerprint of a finger via the fingerprint sensor 10. The fingerprint sensor 10 senses the finger to acquire a plurality of fingerprint images, and transmits the fingerprint images to the processor 30. In step S20, the processor 30 determines if M qualified fingerprint images are acquired. A qualified fingerprint image is used to generate fingerprint enrollment information, and an unqualified fingerprint image is discarded), enabling the collection device to obtain an image that meets a clarity condition when an operation body moves in the collection area, and; determining target collected images based on the plurality of collected images, including: determining two or more of the plurality of collected images that represent a target movement trajectory matching a target spiral as the target collected images; and generating a template for biometric verification of the operation body (Figs. 2A-10; Para. 3, 30-46 of Chien; electronic device senses the user's fingerprint and compares it with the enrolled fingerprint to identify the user… If the user follows above instruction to move the finger on the fingerprint sensor 10 in a spiral path, the fingerprint sensor 10 senses the finger multiple times during the movement of the finger on the fingerprint sensor 10. Thereby a plurality of fingerprint images 60 can be acquired, as shown in FIG. 10… when the processor 30 determines that the M quailed fingerprint images are acquired or the number of times that the finger touches the fingerprint sensor 10 reaches N, the fingerprint sensor 10 stops sensing the fingerprint. If the fingerprint enrollment method used by the user is moving the finger on the fingerprint sensor 10 in a spiral path, the processor 30 will first determine that the M qualified fingerprint images have been acquired (i.e. the determination in step S30 is YES) and then ends the enrollment process).
Chien does not explicitly disclose generating a template by splicing the target collected images.
However, Kim teaches generating a template by splicing the target collected images (Claim 1; Figs. 2-5; Para. 54-71 of Kim; user's fingerprint is continuously sliced into a plurality of local fingerprint images. An effective single fingerprint image may be composed from the local fingerprint images and compared with a pre-registered fingerprint image in a fingerprint database to determine, for example, that the person has rights to access mobile device 101… composition unit 60 composites the corrected local fingerprint images into the effective single fingerprint image. The fingerprint recognition unit 70 performs the recognition/identification process with respect to the user's fingerprint using the effective single fingerprint image).
Therefore, at the time when the invention was filed, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to include generating a template by splicing the target collected images using the teachings of Kim in order to modify the device taught by Chien. The motivation to combine these analogous arts would have been to provide a fingerprint recognition system and method employing local fingerprint image composition which can accurately perform the fingerprint recognition even when there is a difference between finger sliding speed and a sampling speed of a sensor (Para. 23 of Kim).
Regarding Claims 9 and 19, the combination of Chien and Kim teaches that the processor is further configured to, when configuring the collection device to obtain the plurality of collected images: configure the collection device to obtain the plurality of collected images in response to the operation body moving in the collection area along a spiral line (Figs. 4-10; Para. 30-36 of Chien; when the processor 30 determines that the M quailed fingerprint images are acquired or the number of times that the finger touches the fingerprint sensor 10 reaches N, the fingerprint sensor 10 stops sensing the fingerprint. If the fingerprint enrollment method used by the user is moving the finger on the fingerprint sensor 10 in a spiral path, the processor 30 will first determine that the M qualified fingerprint images have been acquired (i.e. the determination in step S30 is YES) and then ends the enrollment process).
Regarding Claim 11, the combination of Chien and Kim teaches an electronic device comprising: a collection device; and a processor configured to perform the method according to claim 1 (Abstract; Claim 1, 14; Fig. 1; Para. 24 of Chien; electronic device comprises a fingerprint sensor 10, a display 20, a processor 30, and a storage medium 40 storing the codes that the processor 30 requires to perform the fingerprint enrollment process. The processor 30 is coupled to the fingerprint sensor 10, the display 20, and the storage medium 40. The fingerprint sensor 10 is configured to sense the fingerprint of a finger and has a size smaller than the finger… During the fingerprint enrollment process, a user inputs a fingerprint of a finger via the fingerprint sensor 10. The fingerprint sensor 10 senses the finger to acquire a plurality of fingerprint images, and transmits the fingerprint images to the processor 30. In step S20, the processor 30 determines if M qualified fingerprint images are acquired. A qualified fingerprint image is used to generate fingerprint enrollment information, and an unqualified fingerprint image is discarded).
Regarding Claim 20, the combination of Chien and Kim teaches determining the target spiral based on a collection duration and a specified area corresponding to the operation body (Figs. 4-10; Para. 30-36 of Chien; when the processor 30 determines that the M quailed fingerprint images are acquired or the number of times that the finger touches the fingerprint sensor 10 reaches N, the fingerprint sensor 10 stops sensing the fingerprint. If the fingerprint enrollment method used by the user is moving the finger on the fingerprint sensor 10 in a spiral path, the processor 30 will first determine that the M qualified fingerprint images have been acquired (i.e. the determination in step S30 is YES) and then ends the enrollment process).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 21 is allowed.
The following is an Examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Applicant’s claims presented on 11/24/2023 constitute the basis for the reasons of allowance as the current prior art of record, considered individually or in combination, fails to teach or reasonably suggest the claimed features of claim 21 structurally and functionally interconnected with other limitations in the manner as cited in the claims and dependent claims. Examiner notes that the current invention as disclosed in the independent claims is allowed in its entirety. Each and every limitation working together in concert realizes the current claimed invention’s novelty. No single limitation alone accomplishes the allowability of the inventive independent claim(s), rather each and every limitation of the claim(s) and their disclosed relationships are integral.
None of the references, either singularly or in combination, teach or fairly suggest a
collection method comprising: obtaining, through a collection area of a collection device, a plurality of collected images based on one or more target configuration parameters, the one or more target configuration parameters, when applied to the collection device, enabling the collection device to obtain an image that meets a clarity condition when an operation body moves in the collection area; determining target collected images based on the plurality of collected images; and generating a template for biometric verification of the operation body by splicing the target collected images; wherein determining the target collected images includes determining two or more of the plurality of collected images that represent a target movement trajectory matching a target trajectory as the target collected images, including: determining a first image of the plurality of collected images as one of the target collected images; determining a reference feature point of the first image, the reference feature point coinciding with a center of the first image; determining that a second image of the plurality of collected images includes a target feature point same as the reference feature point; and in response to a position parameter of the target feature point corresponding to a target position in a position set corresponding to the target trajectory, determining the second image as another one of the target collected image.
Claims 3-6 and 13-16 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
None of the references, either singularly or in combination, teach or fairly suggest the
method according to claim 2, wherein determining the two or more of the plurality of collected images as the target collected images includes: determining a first image of the plurality of collected images as one of the target collected images; determining a reference feature point of the first image, the reference feature point coinciding with a center of the first image; determining that a second image of the plurality of collected images includes a target feature point same as the reference feature point; and in response to a position parameter of the target feature point corresponding to a target position in a position set corresponding to the target trajectory, determining the second image as another one of the target collected images.
None of the references, either singularly or in combination, teach or fairly suggest the electronic device according to claim 12, wherein the processor is further configured to, when determining the two or more of the plurality of collected images as the target collected images:
determine a first image of the plurality of collected images as one of the target collected images; determine a reference feature point of the first image, the reference feature point coinciding with a center of the first image; determine that a second image of the plurality of collected images includes a target feature point same as the reference feature point; and
in response to a position parameter of the target feature point corresponding to a target position in a position set corresponding to the target trajectory, determine the second image as another one of the target collected images.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 07/01/2026 with respect to claim 1 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Chien merely employs a spiral path to guide the user's finger during acquisition of fingerprint images and does not disclose or suggest “determining two or more of the plurality of collected images that represent a target movement trajectory matching a target spiral as the target collected images.” Applicant further argues that Chien does not disclose filtering out fingerprint images acquired when the user's finger deviates from the spiral path. The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
During examination, pending claims are given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification, as understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation of amended claim 1, the recitation that the collected images “represent a target movement trajectory matching a target spiral” does not require determining an actual movement trajectory, mathematically or geometrically comparing the actual trajectory with a predefined spiral, determining an amount of deviation from the spiral, or rejecting images obtained when the operation body deviates from the spiral. No such requirements are expressly recited in claim 1. Rather, claim 1 broadly requires determining two or more collected images that represent a target movement trajectory matching a target spiral as the target collected images.
As discussed in the prior Office Action, Chien discloses instructing a user to move a finger on the fingerprint sensor along a spiral path and sensing the finger multiple times during movement along that spiral path, thereby acquiring a plurality of fingerprint images. Thus, when the user follows Chien's disclosed spiral instruction, the resulting fingerprint images are acquired at successive portions of the finger movement along the spiral path and reasonably represent the movement trajectory of the finger along the target spiral. Chien further discloses subsequently determining whether the acquired fingerprint images are qualified and using qualified fingerprint images for fingerprint enrollment. Accordingly, Chien does not merely acquire images without further determination. Rather, Chien determines from among the acquired fingerprint images which images satisfy its qualification requirements for subsequent use. In the disclosed spiral-path embodiment, the qualified images selected from the plurality acquired while the finger moves along the spiral path therefore constitute two or more collected images representing the disclosed spiral movement trajectory.
Applicant's argument that Chien fails to “filter out” images acquired while the finger is off the spiral is not commensurate with the scope of claim 1 under its broadest reasonable interpretation. Applicant's proposed interpretation would therefore import additional limitations into the claim that are not recited and would require the Examiner to read into claim 1 an unrecited requirement that the processor detect deviation from the target spiral and exclude images based upon such deviation. Such an interpretation is narrower than the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim language and is not required by the express recitations of claim 1. Nor does the phrase “matching a target spiral” require, under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the presently claimed language, a separate processor-performed trajectory-comparison operation. Rather, the limitation reasonably encompasses collected images representing movement that corresponds to the instructed target spiral, as taught by Chien. Therefore, Applicant's assertion that Chien merely uses the spiral for guidance does not distinguish the claimed subject matter. Chien teaches acquisition of a plurality of fingerprint images during movement along the instructed spiral and subsequent determination of qualified images from that plurality. The selected images obtained during the disclosed spiral movement reasonably satisfy the claimed requirement of determining two or more collected images that represent a target movement trajectory matching a target spiral. Accordingly, Chien teaches or suggests the limitations of amended claim 1.
Further, as previously set forth in the rejection, Kim teaches or suggests generating a template for biometric verification by splicing the target collected images. Accordingly, the combination of Chien and Kim teaches or suggests the limitations of amended claim 10.
Examiner further maintains the rejections for all of the dependent claims.
Conclusion
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ABHISHEK SARMA whose telephone number is (571)272-9887. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon - Fri 8:00-5:00.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Amr Awad can be reached on 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ABHISHEK SARMA/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2621
