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 .
Examiner’s Note
Claim 15 is directed to a “computer program product comprising: a computer readable storage device”. A rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 is not made. The specification at [0087]-]0088] states: “In the context of this document, a computer readable storage device may be any tangible medium that can contain or store a program for use by or in connection with an instruction execution system, apparatus, or device. Where utilized herein, the terms "tangible" and "non-transitory" are intended to describe a computer-readable storage medium (or "memory") excluding propagating electromagnetic signals;”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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) 1-5, 8-12, and 15-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by Tsukada (U.S. Pub. No. 20240155244), as cited in the IDS filed 22 April 2026.
Regarding claim 1, Tsukada teaches:
An electronic device (See the Abstract.) comprising:
a first camera (See [0034]: “The information processing system 10 may also include a camera 18 and an illumination 19.”);
a memory having stored thereon a camera control module for controlling image capturing via the first camera (See Fig. 1.); and
at least one processor communicatively coupled to each of the first camera and the memory, and which executes program code of the camera control module, the at least one processor configured to cause the electronic device to (See Fig. 1.):
capture, via the first camera, a first image (See [0053]: “Incidentally, when the skin color information acquiring unit 110 acquires the skin color information from the image of the target, a processing for capturing an image of the target (e.g., a processing for capturing a face image of the target) may be executed before this step.”);
determine if the first image contains a face (See [0048]: “In this case, the skin color information acquiring unit 110 may have a function of detecting an area (that is, a facial area) in which the face of the target is present.”);
in response to determining the first image contains the face, identify a skin tone frequency associated with the face based on the first image (See [0049]: “The luminance information estimating unit 120 is configured to be able to estimate luminance information of the skin of the target (e.g., luminance information of the skin when imaging the target) from the skin color information acquired by the skin color information acquiring unit 110.” The cited “luminance information” meets the claimed “skin tone frequency”. This interpretation is consistent with one definition of “skin tone frequency” in the specification of the current application—see [0056]: “First and second skin tone frequency 234 and 238 respectively represent a measure of the color of the face of a user in first image 232.”);
determine if the skin tone frequency is less than a skin tone frequency threshold (See [0082]: “The first threshold value and the second threshold value are a threshold value indicating an upper limit of a target value of a luminance information and a threshold value indicating a lower limit of the target value of the luminance information, respectively. ”);
in response to determining the skin tone frequency is less than the skin tone frequency threshold, decrease a first shutter speed of the first camera to a second shutter speed (See [0082]: “The controlling unit 130 according to the fourth embodiment is configured to be able to control at least one of the camera parameter and the illumination 19 so that the luminance information becomes between the first threshold value and the second threshold value.” Then see [0146]: “As shown in FIG. 16 , in the information system 10 according to the ninth embodiment, a controlling unit 130 controls exposure time of a camera 18 (shutter speed) and an illumination 19 on the basis of luminance information estimated by a luminance information estimating unit 120. Specifically, the controlling unit 130 according to the ninth embodiment can perform a first control, in which the exposure time becomes shorter, and the illumination 19 becomes brighter”. The examiner asserts that the “camera parameter” that is controlled in the fourth embodiment includes the shutter speed described in the ninth embodiment, since in [0050]: “The camera parameter may include, for example, at least one of aperture, exposure time, and gain of a lens” and [0126] establishes that exposure time is controlled by shutter speed: “to increase a shutter speed (exposure time)”.); and
capture a second image, via the first camera using the second shutter speed (See [0055]: “In this case, the controlling unit 130 may have a function of outputting an imaging instruction to the camera after the control of the camera parameter. The image imaged by the camera 18 may be used, for example, for biometrics.”).
Regarding claim 2, Tsukada teaches:
The electronic device of claim 1, wherein in response to determining the skin tone frequency is not less than the skin tone frequency threshold (See [0082]: “The first threshold value and the second threshold value are a threshold value indicating an upper limit of a target value of a luminance information and a threshold value indicating a lower limit of the target value of the luminance information, respectively.”), identify the first image to be used in a facial recognition processes to authenticate the identity of a first user (See [0055]: “The image imaged by the camera 18 may be used, for example, for biometrics. In this case, the biometric authentication may be a multi-modal authentication for performing certification at a plurality of sites. For example, face authentication using a face image captured when acquiring skin color information and iris authentication using an iris image captured after control may be performed.”).
Regarding claim 3, Tsukada teaches:
The electronic device of claim 1, wherein the at least one processor is configured to cause the electronic device to: trigger a facial recognition process to authenticate the identity of a first user, the facial recognition process at least partially based on the second image captured using the second shutter speed (See [0055]: “In this case, the controlling unit 130 may have a function of outputting an imaging instruction to the camera after the control of the camera parameter. The image imaged by the camera 18 may be used, for example, for biometrics. In this case, the biometric authentication may be a multi-modal authentication for performing certification at a plurality of sites. For example, face authentication using a face image captured when acquiring skin color information and iris authentication using an iris image captured after control may be performed.”).
Regarding claim 4, Tsukada teaches:
The electronic device of claim 1, wherein capturing the first image is triggered by initiation of a facial recognition process to authenticate the identity of a first user (See [0055]: “In this case, the biometric authentication may be a multi-modal authentication for performing certification at a plurality of sites. For example, face authentication using a face image captured when acquiring skin color information and iris authentication using an iris image captured after control may be performed.”).
Regarding claim 5, Tsukada teaches:
The electronic device of claim 1, further comprising: at least one light sensor that is communicatively coupled to the at least one processor, and wherein the at least one processor is configured to cause the electronic device to: receive a first light intensity value of a first region of interest from the at least one light sensor; retrieve a light intensity threshold; determine if the first light intensity value is less than the light intensity threshold; in response to determining the first light intensity value is less than the light intensity threshold, identify the region of interest as being in a low light intensity condition; and in response to identifying the region of interest as being in a low light intensity condition, trigger a decrease in shutter speed of the first camera during a subsequent facial recognition process (See [0082]: “The controlling unit 130 according to the fourth embodiment is configured to be able to control at least one of the camera parameter and the illumination 19 so that the luminance information becomes between the first threshold value and the second threshold value.” Then see [0146]: “As shown in FIG. 16 , in the information system 10 according to the ninth embodiment, a controlling unit 130 controls exposure time of a camera 18 (shutter speed) and an illumination 19 on the basis of luminance information estimated by a luminance information estimating unit 120. Specifically, the controlling unit 130 according to the ninth embodiment can perform a first control, in which the exposure time becomes shorter, and the illumination 19 becomes brighter”.).
Tsukada teaches the method of claim 8 for the reasons given in the treatment of claim 1.
Tsukada teaches claim 9 for the reasons given in the treatment of claim 2.
Tsukada teaches claim 10 for the reasons given in the treatment of claim 3.
Tsukada teaches claim 11 for the reasons given in the treatment of claim 4.
Tsukada teaches claim 12 for the reasons given in the treatment of claim 5.
Tsukada teaches the computer program product of claim 15 for the reasons given in the treatment of claim 1.
Tsukada teaches claim 16 for the reasons given in the treatment of claim 2.
Tsukada teaches claim 17 for the reasons given in the treatment of claim 3.
Tsukada teaches claim 18 for the reasons given in the treatment of claim 4.
Tsukada teaches claim 19 for the reasons given in the treatment of claim 5.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 6, 7, 13, 14, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsukada (U.S. Pub. No. 20240155244) in view of Nechyba et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 20130336527), hereinafter “Nechyba”.
Claim 6 is met by the combination of Tsukada and Nechyba, wherein
Tsukada teaches:
The electronic device of claim 1, wherein the at least one processor is configured to cause the electronic device to:
Tsukada does not explicitly disclose the following; however, Nechyba discloses:
trigger a facial enrollment process to establish a facial identification template, the facial identification template at least partially based on the second image captured using the second shutter speed (See [0016]: “Based on the comparison, the mobile computing device may categorize the image as a good quality image or a poor quality image. If the image is a good quality image, the mobile computing device may proceed with the facial recognition enrollment or authentication process. If, however, the image is a poor quality image, the mobile computing device may notify the user of the problem and provide suggestions as to how to improve the quality of the image before capturing another image.” See adjustment of shutter speed to ensure a good quality image before enrollment in [0072].).
Tsukada and Nechyba together disclose the limitations of claim 6. Nechyba is directed to a similar field of art (improving the quality of a captured face image for enrollment and authentication). Therefore, Tsukada and Nechyba are combinable. Tsukada does briefly describe authentication, but does not follow up with more detail about related functions such as enrollment. Modifying the system and method of Tsukada by adding the capability to “trigger a facial enrollment process to establish a facial identification template, the facial identification template at least partially based on the second image captured using the second shutter speed”, as disclosed by Nechyba, would yield the expected and predictable result of a complete enrollment-to-authentication sequence for fully realizing a biometric security system. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Tsukada and Nechyba in this way.
Claim 7 is met by the combination of Tsukada and Nechyba, wherein
Tsukada teaches:
The electronic device of claim 1, wherein the memory has stored thereon
Tsukada does not explicitly disclose the following; however, Nechyba discloses:
a security module for authenticating the identity of a user of the electronic device, and the at least one processor is configured to cause the electronic device to: retrieve a reference facial image; determine if the second image substantially matches the reference facial image; and in response to the second image substantially matching the reference facial image (See [0025]: “Computing device 102 may then compare the captured authentication image with the enrollment image, and determine whether or not the images are sufficiently similar to each other for facial recognition purposes.”), unlocking the electronic device (See [0023]: “In some examples, computing device 102 may utilize facial recognition technology to stop operation locked mode. In other words, user 114 may “unlock” computing device 102 by authentication methods that use facial recognition techniques to determine whether user 114 is an authorized user of device 102.”).
See the motivation to combine in the treatment of claim 6.
Claim 13 is met by the combination of Tsukada and Nechyba for the reasons given in the treatment of claim 6.
Claim 14 is met by the combination of Tsukada and Nechyba for the reasons given in the treatment of claim 7.
Claim 20 is met by the combination of Tsukada and Nechyba for the reasons given in the treatment of claim 6.
Contact
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONATHAN S LEE whose telephone number is (571)272-1981. The examiner can normally be reached 11:30 AM - 7:30 PM.
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, Andrew Bee can be reached at (571)270-5183. 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.
/Jonathan S Lee/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2677
Prosecution Insights