DETAILED ACTION
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
2. Claims 1-20 are pending. Claims 1, 13 and 14 are independent.
3 Two IDS’es submitted on 10/18/2024 and 6/15/2026 have been considered.
Claim Objections
4. Claims 7, 8 and 20 are objected to for lacking antecedent basis.
Claims 7 and 8 recite the limitation "the preset type" (emphasis added). There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim since both claims are dependent of claim 1 which does not recite "a preset type" to anticipate "the preset type" as recited in claims 7 and 8.
Similarly, claim 20 recites the limitation "the preset type" (emphasis added). There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim since the claim is dependent of claim 14 which does not recite "a preset type" to anticipate "the preset type" as recited in claims 14.
5. Furthermore, claims 8 and 20 recite the limitation "any two or more of another user other than the authorized system" (emphasis added). There seem to be typographical errors. It appears that the claims should have recited "any two or more of another user other than an authorized user".
6. Appropriate corrections are required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
7. 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 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.
8. 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.
9. Claims 1-6, 8, 9 and 12-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shinjo (EP 1635307) in view of Padmanabhan (US PG Pub. 2021/0200992) in view of Knas (US Patent 10,956,544) and further in view of Gupta (US PG Pub. 2021/0312024).
As regarding claims 1, 12, 13 and 14, Shinjo discloses [a processor [para. 28; a control unit 200], as required by claim 14, configured to perform:] A method with access authority management, the method comprising:
receiving an input image comprising a region of at least one portion of a body of a user [para. 31 and 50; receiving an image];
determining whether the user corresponds to multiple users or a single user using the region of the at least one portion of the body [para. 31 and 50; determining whether a peeping person’s face exists with the face of the user];
performing a verification for the user based on a face region in the input image, in response to the determination that the user is the single user [para. 31 and 50; determining whether the user is suspicious];
Shinjo does not explicitly discloses determining whether the input image is a real image or a spoofed image based on whether the verification is successful; and allowing an access authority to a system to the user, in response to the determination that the input image is the real image. However, Padmanabhan discloses it [para. 52-54].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the effective filing of the invention to modify Shinjo’s system to further comprise the missing claim features, as disclosed by Padmanabhan, to prevent spoofing by a malicious user to gain access to the system.
Shinjo and Padmanabhan do not disclose guiding the user to transmit an image of a space outside a field of view corresponding to the input image by capturing the space, according to a security level corresponding to the system. However, Knas discloses it [col. 7 lines 11-23 and col. 13 line 62 thru col. 17 line 13; transmitting image including sub-regions proximate the head of the user].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the effective filing of the invention to modify Shinjo and Padmanabhan’s system to further comprise the missing claim features, as disclosed by Knas, to detect spoofed image generated using a photograph of an authorized user [Knas col. 19 lines 50-54].
Shinjo, Padmanabhan and Knas do not disclose rotating a capturing device used to capture the input image and capturing the image. However, Gupta discloses it [para. 155-158; the imager on the first device housing 511 pivoting relative to the second device housing 512 about the hinge 513, capturing images].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the effective filing of the invention to modify Shinjo, Padmanabhan and Knas’s system to further comprise the missing claim features, as disclosed by Gupta, to enhance user facial authentication by detecting and determining user’s facial gesture, in addition to using a facial recognition performed by the conventional facial authentication [Gupta para. 37].
As regarding claims 2 and 15, Shinjo further discloses The method of claim 1, wherein the determining of whether the user corresponds to the multiple users or the single user comprises determining whether the user corresponds to the multiple users or the single user based on any one or any combination of any two or more of a number of the region of the at least one portion of the body, a color of the region of the at least one portion of the body, a position of disposition of the region of the at least one portion of the body compared to a position of the face region, an angle of disposition, and a size ratio of the region of the at least one portion of the body to the face region [para. 50].
As regarding claims 3 and 16, Shinjo further discloses The method of claim 1, wherein the performing comprises:
extracting a feature vector of the face region from the input image [para. 65-68]; and
performing the verification for the user based on a result of comparing a similarity score between the feature vector of the face region and an enrolled feature vector stored in an enrollment database to a verification threshold [para. 45 and 68].
As regarding claims 4 and 17, Shinjo further discloses The method of claim 3, further comprising adjusting the verification threshold according to a security level corresponding to the system, wherein the performing comprises performing the verification for the user according to whether the similarity score is greater than the adjusted verification threshold [para. 45 and 68].
As regarding claims 5 and 18, Padmanabhan further discloses The method of claim 1, wherein the determining of whether the input image is the real image or the spoofed image comprises: extracting an output feature vector of a neural network for detecting whether the face region is spoofed from the input image; calculating a score based on the output feature vector; and determining whether the input image is the real image or the spoofed image according to whether the score falls within a threshold range for determining whether the input image is spoofed [para. 43, 50 and 62].
As regarding claims 6 and 19, Shinjo and Padmanabhan further discloses The method of claim 5, further comprising adjusting the threshold range according to a security level corresponding to the system [Shinjo para. 45 and 68], wherein the determining of whether the input image is the real image or the spoofed image comprises determining whether the input image is the real image or the spoofed image according to whether the score falls within the adjusted threshold range [Padmanabhan para. 43, 50 and 62].
As regarding claims 8 and 20, Shinjo further discloses The method of claim 1, further comprising: determining whether an abnormal situation is detected in a second input image received after the access authority is allowed, the abnormal situation including any one or any combination of any two or more of another user other than the authorized user, the preset type of capturing device, and a capturing action using the capturing device; and blocking an access authority to the system in response to the determination that an abnormal situation is detected [para. 34 and 50].
As regarding claim 9, Shinjo further discloses The method of claim 8, wherein the determining of whether the abnormal situation is detected comprises determining whether the other user is detected based on whether a plurality of face regions are detected in the second input image [para. 34 and 50].
As regarding claim 14, Padmanabhan further discloses The method of claim 1, further comprising verifying whether the input image is captured by a capturing device with a polarizing film attached to narrow a field of view [para. 19-22].
10. Claims 7, 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shinjo (EP 1635307) in view of Padmanabhan (US PG Pub. 2021/0200992) in view of Knas (US Patent 10,956,544) in view of Gupta (US PG Pub. 2021/0312024) and further in view of Alon (US PG Pub. 2018/0060680).
As regarding claim 7, Shinjo, Padmanabhan, Knas and Gupta do not disclose blocking an access authority of the user to the system in response to the determination that the preset type of capturing device is detected. However, Alon discloses it [para. 28].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the effective filing of the invention to modify Shinjo, Padmanabhan, Knas and Gupta’s system to further comprise the missing claim features, as disclosed by Alon, to prevent spoof attempt by a malicious user to gain access to the device.
As regarding claim 10, Alon further discloses The method of claim 8, wherein the determining of whether the abnormal situation is detected comprises determining whether an object corresponding to the preset type of capturing device is detected in the second input image [para. 28].
As regarding claim 11, Alon further discloses The method of claim 8, wherein the determining of whether the abnormal situation is detected comprises determining whether the capturing action, being of the user and corresponding to the preset type of capturing device, is detected in the second input image [para. 28].
wherein the determining of whether the capturing action of the user is detected comprises determining whether the capturing action of the user is detected based on whether any one or any combination of any two or more of a pose of the user facing a screen provided through the system, a gesture of the user, a position of the capturing device corresponding to the screen, and consecutive motions of the user using the capturing device in the second input image corresponds to a motion predetermined as a capturing action [para. 28].
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THONG P TRUONG whose telephone number is (571)270-7905. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8:30AM - 5:30PM.
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, Jeffrey Pwu can be reached on 57127267986798. 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.
/THONG TRUONG/
Examiner, Art Unit 2433
/JEFFREY C PWU/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2433
Prosecution Insights