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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 11/05/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 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:
Depth estimation unit in claim 1;
Depth feature information generating unit in claim 1;
Depth face authentication unit in claim 1;
Part area recognition unit in claim 2;
Two-dimensional face authentication unit in claim 4; and
Blur removing unit in claim 5.
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.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-3 and 8-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Us patent application no. 2024/0007759 to Veuthey.
For claims 1, 8 and 9, Veuthey as applied discloses a face authentication device comprising:
a monocular camera that includes a coded aperture and captures a face of a user through the coded aperture to acquire a captured image of the face of the user (see, e.g., pars. 75, 129, 131, and 165 and FIGS. 2A and 2B, which teach capturing, using a monocular camera, a scene through a coded aperture, wherein the scene includes a user);
a depth estimation unit that estimates a depth in at least a part of the captured image by an operation corresponding to the coded aperture (see, e.g., pars. 77 and 131-134 and FIG. 3, which teach determining depth information relating to each of one or more regions of the scene by processing the image captured through the coded aperture);
a depth feature information generating unit that generates depth feature information indicating a feature of the face of the user in a depth direction based on the depth (see, e.g., pars. 17, 18, 22, 81, 99-104, 133, and 137-143 and FIG. 4, which teach generating a depth image/map of the scene associating the determined depth information relating to each of one or more regions of the scene and the image of the scene captured by the image sensor; the examiner interprets the depth image/map to indicate a facial feature because the depth information therein is used to recognize facial features); and
a depth face authentication unit that authenticates the user based on the depth feature information (see, e.g., pars. 22, 105-108 and 165, which teach unlocking the electronic device in response to recognizing one or more facial features of a user in the scene).
For claim 2, Veuthey as applied discloses a part area recognition unit recognizes a part area in which a predetermined part of the face of the user is represented based on the captured image (see, e.g., pars. 22, 100-104 and 165, which teach recognizing one or more facial features of the user in the scene using the determined depth information relating to each of one or more regions of the scene), wherein the depth estimation unit estimates a depth in the part area (see, e.g., pars. 77, 131, 133, and 134 and FIG. 3, which teach determining depth information relating to each of one or more regions of the scene).
For claim 3, Veuthey as applied discloses that the part area recognition unit recognizes a plurality of part areas respectively representing a plurality of predetermined parts of the face of the user based on the captured image (see, e.g., pars. 22, 100-104 and 165, which teach recognizing one or more facial features of the user in the scene using the determined depth information relating to each of one or more regions of the scene),
the depth estimation unit estimates respective depths in the plurality of part areas (see, e.g., pars. 77, 131, 133, and 134, and FIG. 3, which teach determining depth information relating to each of one or more regions of the scene), and
the depth feature information generating unit generates, as the depth feature information, relative depths of a plurality of parts with respect to a predetermined part among the plurality of parts based on the respective depths in the plurality of part areas (see, e.g., pars. 17, 18, 22, 81, 99-104, 133, and 137-143 and FIG. 4, which teach generating a depth image/map of the scene associating the determined depth information relating to each of one or more regions of the scene and the image of the scene captured by the image sensor).
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) 4-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Veuthey in view of us patent application publication no. 2025/0045369 to Satoh et al. (hereinafter Satoh).
For claim 4, While Veuthey does not explicitly teach, Satoh in the analogous art teaches a two-dimensional face authentication unit that performs two-dimensional face authentication based on the captured image (see, e.g., pars. 55-65 and FIGS. 4-7 of Satoh, which teach performing a two-dimensional face authentication).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Veuthey to perform additional 2D authentication as taught by Satoh because doing so would yield predictable results of providing an additional authentication process and improving the accuracy of the overall authentication (see MPEP 2143(I)(D)).
For claim 5, Veuthey in view of Satoh teaches a blur removing unit that removes a blur from the captured image by the operation corresponding to the coded aperture to generate a blur-removed image (see, e.g., pars. 83-89 and 137-143 of Veuthey, which teach deblurring the captured image using the calibration images, wherein the images are captured through the coded aperture), wherein the part area recognition unit recognizes the part area based on the blur-removed image (see, e.g., pars. 22, 83-89, 105-108, 137-143, and 165 and FIG. 4 of Veuthey, which teach recognizing one or more facial features of a user in the scene, wherein the facial features are determined using the depth information that is obtained using deblurred images).
For claim 6, while Veuthey does not explicitly teach, Satoh in the analogous art teaches that the two-dimensional face authentication unit performs the two-dimensional face authentication based on the blur-removed image (see, e.g., pars. 55-65 and FIGS. 4-7 of Satoh, which teach removes the blur before the authentication).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Veuthey to perform the 2D authentication as taught by Satoh because doing so would yield predictable results of providing an additional authentication process and improving the accuracy of the overall authentication (see MPEP 2143(I)(D)).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 7 is 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.
In regard to claim 7, when considered as a whole, prior art of record fails to disclose or render obvious, alone or in combination:
“the depth feature information generating unit calculates an average value of the depths in the respective part areas for each of the plurality of parts and generates the depth feature information based on the average value.”
Additional Citations
The following table lists several references that are relevant to the subject matter claimed and disclosed in this Application. The references are not relied on by the Examiner, but are provided to assist the Applicant in responding to this Office action.
Citation
Relevance
Aggarwal et al. (us pat. pub. 2020/0081549)
Describes a method and a system for assisting in financial services. The method and the system allows for automated interaction with a user without user going through any complicated processes and steps. The method and the system utilizes visual cues, virtual interfaces and audio communication to achieve the intended objective of performing financial services. Any data that may be required or generated or required may be stored in a storage device. The method and the system allows for significant reduction in requirement of additional personnel and paper work, thereby cutting costs and reducing environmental damage.
Arora et al. (us pat. pub. 2020/0302053)
Describes a system and techniques for identifying and preventing certain fraud attacks that may be used to defeat facial recognition systems. In embodiments of the system described herein, biometric data may be segregated into regions, which are then processed separately and in parallel. Likeness scores are determined for each of the separate regions. By tracking individual region likeness scores used in access requests in accordance with embodiments of the disclosure, the system is able to identify potential fraud attacks that cannot be detected using conventional systems.
D’aleo et al. (us pat. pub. 2024/0137656)
Describes an optical system. In one embodiment, the system includes a spatial encoding arrangement for generating spatially encoded light with an initial spatial distribution; a coded aperture defining a mask pattern based on the initial spatial distribution of the spatially encoded light; and—an image sensor. The spatial encoding arrangement—directs the spatially encoded light onto the object, and the object reflects at least a portion of the spatially encoded light to form reflected light. The reflected light is directed through the coded aperture to form spatially decoded light. The spatially decoded light is directed onto the image sensor to form an image thereon, and the image sensor detects the image. The spatial encoding arrangement includes optical emitters spatially arranged, defining the initial spatial pattern of the spatially encoded light. The mask pattern is the inverse of the initial spatial pattern of the spatially encoded light defined by the spatial arrangement of the optical emitters.
Table 1
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See Table 1 and form 892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WOO RHIM whose telephone number is (571)272-6560. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 9:30 am - 6:00 pm et.
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, Henok Shiferaw can be reached at 571-272-4637. 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.
/WOO C RHIM/Examiner, Art Unit 2676
Prosecution Insights