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.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Species III in the reply filed on 02/04/2026 is acknowledged.
The traversal is on the basis that “claim 4, which encompasses alleged Species IV, requires all the elements of claim 3, which encompasses alleged Species III. That is, although claim 4 recites additional elements that are not in claim 3, claim 3 does not recite any element that is not also in claim 4. Therefore, in contrast to the Office's assertion, alleged Species III and IV are not mutually exclusive”. This is found persuasive. However, with regard to the other species, even though one or more elements recited in the claims of Species III are similar to one or more elements recited in the claims of Species I-II and V-VIII, the additional elements of the other species will create a serious burden for the Examiner and will require a different field of search (e.g., searching different classes/sub-classes or electronic resources, or employing different search strategies or search queries).
Claims 7-8 and 17-18 are withdrawn from consideration as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 02/04/2026.
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 (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 1-2, 9, 11-12, and 19 are rejected 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chien in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication 2006/0285729 A1 to Kim et al. (hereinafter "Kim").
Regarding Claims 1 and 11, Chien teaches a collection method and an electronic device comprising: a collection device; and a processor configured to: configure the collection device based on one or more target configuration parameters to obtain a plurality of collected images, 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; determine target collected images based on the plurality of collected images; and generate 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 2 and 12, the combination of Chien and Kim teaches that the processor is further configured to, when determining the target collected images: determine two or more of the plurality of collected images that represent a target movement trajectory matching a target trajectory as the 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).
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).
Allowable Subject Matter
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.”
Conclusion
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
Prosecution Insights