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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 19 is objected to because of the following informalities: based upon the fees paid for independent claims, the Applicant intends claim 19 to be dependent upon claim 10, and the form of claim 19 should make this intent clear. Accordingly, claim 19 should be amended to read, for example, “The user authentication method of claim 10, wherein a non-transitory computer readable storage medium stores a program that performs computer instructions to conduct the following steps: obtaining a face image stored….” Appropriate correction is required.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-9 of U.S. Patent No. 12,175,819. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims overlap in scope as detailed below by the claim-by-claim comparison table and the accompanying remarks.
Instant Application 18/950,785
US Patent 12,175,819
1. A user authentication device, comprising:
a card reader configured to obtain a face image stored in a card when the card is recognized;
an infrared light source configured to emit infrared light;
an infrared camera configured to obtain an infrared image comprising a facial region of a user;
a color camera configured to obtain a color image comprising the facial region of the user; and
a controller configured to determine a result of user authentication based on at least one of the infrared image, the color image, and the face image, and generate a control signal based on the result of the user authentication,
wherein the controller is configured to:
extract a first facial feature corresponding to first bio-information from the face image obtained through the card reader;
extract a second facial feature corresponding to second bio-information from at least one of the color image and the infrared image; and
determine the result of the face authentication based on a result of comparing the first facial feature and the second facial feature, the first facial feature and the second facial feature being independently extracted.
1. A user authentication device, comprising:
a card reader configured to obtain a face image stored in a card when the card is recognized;
an infrared light source configured to emit infrared light toward a user;
an infrared camera configured to obtain an infrared image comprising a facial region of the user;
a color camera configured to obtain a color image comprising the facial region of the user; and
a controller configured to determine a result of user authentication based on at least one of the infrared image, the color image, and the face image, and generate a control signal based on the result of the user authentication,
wherein the controller is configured to:
perform a liveness test based on the infrared image; and
when a result of the liveness test is determined to be successful, determine a result of face authentication based on information about the facial region in at least one of the color image and the infrared image and on the face image obtained from the card,
wherein the card is a security card comprising an encoded face image,
wherein the controller is configured to:
extract a first facial feature corresponding to first bio-information from the encoded face image obtained through the card reader without going through the liveness test;
when the result of the liveness test is determined to be successful,
extract a second facial feature corresponding to second bio-information from at least one of the color image and the infrared image;
determine the result of the face authentication based on a result of comparing the first facial feature and the second facial feature, the first facial feature and the second facial feature being independently extracted,
wherein the controller is configured to terminate the user authentication and delete related information from a storage when the result of the liveness test is not successful,
wherein the controller is configured to perform the face authentication by comparing feature points indicated respectively by the first facial feature and the second facial feature and determining whether they correspond to a face of the same user,
wherein the user authentication device temporarily stores information about the extracted first facial feature and the extracted second facial feature, and
wherein the user authentication device is not configured to require a separate database that stores bio-information of the user.
2. The user authentication device of claim 1,
wherein the controller is configured to:
terminate the user authentication and delete related information from a storage when the result of the liveness test is not successful.
1. …
wherein the controller is configured to terminate the user authentication and delete related information from a storage when the result of the liveness test is not successful, …
3. The user authentication device of claim 1,
wherein the controller is configured to:
perform a liveness test based on the infrared image; and
when a result of the liveness test is determined to be successful, determine a result of face authentication based on information about the facial region in at least one of the color image and the infrared image and on the face image obtained from the card.
1. …
wherein the controller is configured to:
perform a liveness test based on the infrared image; and
when a result of the liveness test is determined to be successful, determine a result of face authentication based on information about the facial region in at least one of the color image and the infrared image and on the face image obtained from the card,…
4. The user authentication device of claim 1,
wherein the controller is configured to:
when the result of the user authentication is determined, perform a control operation to delete, from a storage, the obtained infrared image, the obtained color image, and the obtained face image.
2. The user authentication device of claim 1,
wherein the controller is configured to:
when the result of the user authentication is determined, perform a control operation to delete, from the storage, the obtained infrared image, the obtained color image, and the obtained face image.
5. The user authentication device of claim 1,
wherein the controller is configured to: verify whether a reflection point shown when the infrared light is reflected by a pupil of the user is present in the infrared image; and
when the reflection point is verified not to be present in the infrared image, determine the result of the user authentication to be unsuccessful.
3. The user authentication device of claim 1,
wherein the controller is configured to:
verify whether a reflection point shown when the infrared light is reflected by a pupil of the user is present in the infrared image; and
when the reflection point is verified not to be present in the infrared image, determine the result of the user authentication to be unsuccessful.
6. The user authentication device of claim 4,
wherein the controller is configured to when the reflection point of the pupil is verified to be present in the infrared image, perform the face authentication based on at least one of the color image and the infrared image and on the face image stored in the card.
4. The user authentication device of claim 3,
wherein the controller is configured to
when the reflection point of the pupil is verified to be present in the infrared image, perform the face authentication based on at least one of the color image and the infrared image and on the face image stored in the card.
7. The user authentication device of claim 1,
wherein the controller is configured to: detect whether the facial region of the user is present in the infrared image; and when the facial region is not detected in the infrared image, determine the result of the user authentication to be unsuccessful.
5. The user authentication device of claim 1,
wherein the controller is configured to:
detect whether the facial region of the user is present in the infrared image; and
when the facial region is not detected in the infrared image, determine the result of the user authentication to be unsuccessful
8. The user authentication device of claim 1,
wherein the controller is configured to: verify whether at least one of transmission and saturation of the infrared light occurs in the infrared image; and when the at least one of the transmission and the saturation is verified to occur, determine the result of the user authentication to be unsuccessful.
6. The user authentication device of claim 1,
wherein the controller is configured to:
verify whether at least one of transmission and saturation of the infrared light occurs in the infrared image; and when the at least one of the transmission and the saturation is verified to occur, determine the result of the user authentication to be unsuccessful.
9. The user authentication device of claim 3,
wherein the card is a security card comprising an encoded face image,
wherein the controller is configured to:
when the result of the liveness test is determined to be successful,
extract the first facial feature from the encoded face image obtained through the card reader,
extract the second facial feature from at least one of the color image and the infrared image.
1. …
wherein the card is a security card comprising an encoded face image,
wherein the controller is configured to:
extract a first facial feature corresponding to first bio-information from the encoded face image obtained through the card reader without going through the liveness test;
when the result of the liveness test is determined to be successful,
extract a second facial feature corresponding to second bio-information from at least one of the color image and the infrared image; …
Regarding claims 10-20 of the instant application, these claims mirror the subject matter of claims 1-9, and consequently claims 10-20 are rejected under the same basis as claims 1-9.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 2, 11, and 20 recite the limitation "the liveness test". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims.
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 following conventions apply to the mapping of the prior art to the claims:
Italicized text – claim language.
Parenthetical plain text – Examiner’s citation and explanation.
Citation without an explanation – an explanation has been previously provided for the respective limitation(s).
Quotation marks – language quoted from a prior art reference.
Underlining – language quoted from a claim.
Brackets – material altered from either a prior art reference or a claim, which includes the Examiner’s explanation that relates a claim limitation to the quoted material of a reference.
Braces – a limitation taught by another reference, but the limitation is presented with the mapping of the instant reference for context.
Numbered superscript – a first phrase to be moved upwards to the primary reference analysis.
Lettered superscript – a second phrase to be moved after the movement of the first phrase from which it was lifted, or more succinctly, move numbered material first, lettered material last.
A. Claims 1-4, 7, 9-13, 16, 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Han et al. (US 2019/0228248, “Han”) in view of Smith et al. (US 2017/0244684, “Smith”), and further in view of Bell et al. (US 2010/0299530, “Bell”).
Regarding Claim 1
Han discloses
A user authentication device (Fig. 5A, ¶¶ [0102]-[0103], i.e., the various components, such as the “liveness test apparatus 500” form an aspect of a user authentication device), comprising:
1 …;
an infrared light source configured to emit infrared light (¶ [0102], “The IR image may be obtained when IR light emitted from an IR light source 530 is reflected by the user 510 [that required the emission of infrared light] and then the reflected IR light is sensed by the IR image sensor 535.”);
an infrared camera (Fig. 5A, ¶ [0102], “…then the reflected IR light is sensed by the IR image sensor 535 [as an infrared camera].”) configured to obtain an infrared image comprising a facial region of a user (¶ [0089], “As a non-limiting example, an iris region detected in the color image and a face region [of the user] detected in the IR image [obtained] may be used for the liveness test.”);
a color camera (Fig. 5A, ¶ [0102], “As a non-limiting example, in a case in which a user 510 desires to capture an image of a face or an iris for user verification, the color image may be obtained for the user verification through the color image sensor 515 [as a color camera]…”) configured to obtain a color image comprising the facial region of the user (¶ [0082], “As a non-limiting example, in a case in which test regions of the ROIs to be used [and thereby obtained] for the liveness test are identical in the color image and the IR image, the liveness test apparatus may detect a face region [of the user] or an iris region in both the color image and the IR image, and perform the liveness test based on the detected face region or the detected iris region.”); and
2 …,
wherein the {controller (Smith ¶ [0026], see also Han ¶ [0139], “Examples of hardware components that may be used to perform the operations described in this application where appropriate include controllers,…”)} is configured to:
3 …;
4 …; and
5 ….
Han doesn’t disclose
1 a card reader configured to obtain a face image stored in a card when the card is recognized;
2 a controller configured to determine a result of user authentication based on at least one of the infrared image, the color image, and the face image, and generate a control signal based on the result of the user authentication;
3 extract a first facial feature corresponding to first bio-information from the face image obtained through the card reader;
4 extract a second facial feature corresponding to second bio-information from at least one of the color image and the infrared image;
5 determine the result of the face authentication based on a result of comparing the first facial feature and the second facial feature, the first facial feature and the second facial feature being independently extracted.
Smith, however, discloses
1 a card reader (¶ [0018], “As used herein, the term ‘authentication device’ refers to any of the wide variety of mobile and other electronic devices that may perform biometric authentication operations consistent with the present disclosure. Non-limiting examples of suitable authentication devices include biometric authentication terminals, … electronic [card] readers,…;” and ¶ [0031], “For example, if client device 101 is in the form of a smart card and authentication device 102 is in the form of a retinal scanner, device platforms 201, 208 may be a smart card platform and a retinal scanner platform, respectively.”) configured to obtain a face image (¶ [0019], “The term ‘biometric information’ is used herein to refer to observable physiological or behavioral traits of human beings,” “Such information may be detectable using one or more sensors, such as an optical or infrared camera, iris scanner, facial recognition system,…”) stored in a card (¶ [0022], “Alternatively or additionally, the client devices described herein may be in the form of a smart card,…,” and ¶ [0040], “In the embodiment of FIG. 2, biometric reference templates 206 [as a face image] are illustrated as stored in memory 203 of client device 101 [as a card].”) when the card is recognized (Fig. 3, ¶ [0066], “Once attestation passes, the method may proceed from block to block 308, wherein the client device [a card] transmits biometric reference templates [as a facial image] to the authentication device [as a card reader] using any suitable form communication, as previously discussed;” and ¶¶ [0062]-[0063], “At block 302, a determination may by a client device [as a card] as to whether a connection (e.g., communications channel) has been established with an authentication device [card reader],” and “Once a connection with an authentication device has been established, the method may proceed to block 303, wherein the client device may monitor for the receipt of attestation information from the authentication device,” i.e., the establishment of the communication channel and the sending of the attestation information indicates the authentication device as the card reader recognizes the client device as the card);
2 a controller (¶ [0026], “The client and/or authentication devices of the present disclosure may store one or more modules [as a controller] in a memory thereof. As used in any embodiment herein, the term “module” may refer to software, firmware and/or circuitry that is/are configured to perform or cause the performance of one or more operations consistent with the present disclosure,” and “‘Circuitry’, as used in any embodiment herein, may comprise, for example, singly or in any combination, hardwired circuitry, programmable circuitry such as computer processors comprising one or more individual instruction processing cores, state machine circuitry, software and/or firmware that stores instructions executed by programmable circuitry.”) configured to determine a result of user authentication based on at least one of the infrared image, the color image, and the face image (Fig. 4, ¶¶ [0093]-[0094], “Pursuant to this block, the authentication device may store received biometric templates in an appropriate protected environment. In addition, the authentication device may analyze the received biometric templates [as a face image] and select appropriate sensors for the collection of biometric test information for use in a biometric [user] authentication operation,” noting only one method need be taught based on the recitation of “at least one of”), and generate a control signal based on the result of the user authentication (¶ [0094], “Pursuant to such block, the authentication device may establish an authenticated session [via a generated control signal that authorizes and controls access to resources by the user], whereupon the user may be permitted to access resources that the authentication device protects.”);
Regarding the combination of Han and Smith, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the liveness test system of Han to arrive at the claimed invention. KSR establishes that a rationale for obviousness is proven by showing a “use of [a] known technique to improve similar devices in the same way.” See MPEP § 2143(I)(C).
To substantiate the conclusion of obviousness under this KSR rationale, the Examiner finds pursuant to MPEP § 2143(I)(C):
1) the prior art contained a base system, namely the liveness test system of Han, upon which the claimed invention can be seen as an “improvement” through the use of a facial recognition feature;
2) the prior art contained a “comparable” feature, namely the facial recognition feature of Smith, that has been improved in the same way as the claimed invention through the facial recognition feature that complements the liveness test system of Han to create a more accurate authentication system that prevents spoofing (see Han ¶ [0055]); and
3) one of ordinary skill in the art could have applied the known improvement technique of applying the facial recognition feature of Smith to the base liveness test system of Han, and the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Bell, however, discloses
3 extract a first facial feature corresponding to first bio-information from the face image obtained through the card reader (Fig. 2, ¶ [0047], “If no, the authentication system returns to step 130 and again searches for a face. If either or both irises [facial feature] pass the quality checks in step 170, the authentication system proceeds to step 180 and generates [extracts] an iris templates from an iris in the capture image and sends the template to the server.”; and ¶ [0043], “…the user activates the authentication system by entering a smart ID card into a card reader, as shown in step 111, where the enrolled iris template [first bio-information] and other information are retrieved from the smart ID card [obtained through the card reader] once inserted into the card reader,…”);
4 extract a second facial feature corresponding to second bio-information from at least one of the color image and the infrared image (¶ [0046], “One the one hand, the authentication system captures a series of images, for example five images, at different illuminations at step 152. The variance in illumination may be achieved by using IR. The authentication system then determines at step 154 whether the images are taken from a live iris, as opposed to, for example, a picture.”);
5 determine the result of the face authentication based on a result of comparing the first facial feature and the second facial feature (Fig. 2, ¶¶ [0046]-[0048], i.e., the comparisons for step 154 for liveness/IR comparison as the second facial feature and step 190 for the iris comparison as the first facial feature yield a result that grants access to the system at step 200),
the first facial feature and the second facial feature being independently extracted (Fig. 2, ¶¶ [0046]-[0047], i.e., as illustrated in Fig. 2, the two extractions are conducted independently as illustrated by the branched process at steps 152 for liveness via IR and 160 for pupil analysis).
Regarding the combination of Han-Smith and Bell, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the liveness test system of Han-Smith to arrive at the claimed invention. KSR establishes that a rationale for obviousness is proven by showing a “use of [a] known technique to improve similar devices in the same way.” See MPEP § 2143(I)(C).
To substantiate the conclusion of obviousness under this KSR rationale, the Examiner finds pursuant to MPEP § 2143(I)(C):
1) the prior art contained a base system, namely the liveness test system of Han-Smith, upon which the claimed invention can be seen as an “improvement” through the use of dual feature authentication;
2) the prior art contained a “comparable” feature, namely the facial recognition feature of Bell, that has been improved in the same way as the claimed invention through the dual feature authentication; and
3) one of ordinary skill in the art could have applied the known improvement technique of applying the dual feature authentication to the base liveness test system of Han-Smith, and the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding Claim 2
Han in view of Smith, and further in view of Bell (“Han-Smith-Bell”) disclose the user authentication device of claim 1, and Bell further discloses
wherein the {controller (Smith ¶ [0026])} is configured to:
terminate the user authentication and…1 when the result of the liveness test is not successful (Fig. 2, ¶¶ [0046]-[0048], i.e., a “No” at step 154, which indicates the liveness test is not successful consequently terminates the user authentication and returns to search for a new face at step 130).
Regarding the combination of Han-Smith and Bell, the rationale to combine is the same as provided for claim 1 due to the overlapping subject matter of claims 1 and 2.
Smith further discloses
1 …delete related information from a storage…( ¶ [0047], “More specifically, the BAIS may specify the use of a protected environment that enforces a temporary storage policy that results in the deletion of biometric reference template [related] information from the protected environment upon the occurrence of a termination event,…”)
Regarding the combination of Han and Smith, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the liveness test system of Han to arrive at the claimed invention. KSR establishes that a rationale for obviousness is proven by showing a “use of [a] known technique to improve similar devices in the same way.” See MPEP § 2143(I)(C).
To substantiate the conclusion of obviousness under this KSR rationale, the Examiner finds pursuant to MPEP § 2143(I)(C):
1) the prior art contained a base system, namely the liveness test system of Han, upon which the claimed invention can be seen as an “improvement” through the use of a deletion feature;
2) the prior art contained a “comparable” feature, namely the facial recognition feature of Smith, that has been improved in the same way as the claimed invention through the deletion feature that complements the liveness test system of Han to create a more accurate authentication system that prevents spoofing (see Han ¶ [0055]); and
3) one of ordinary skill in the art could have applied the known improvement technique of applying the deletion feature of Smith to the base liveness test system of Han, and the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding Claim 3
Han-Smith-Bell discloses the user authentication device of claim 1, and Han further discloses
wherein the {controller (Smith ¶ [0026])} is configured to:
perform a liveness test based on the infrared image (Fig. 2, ¶ [0074], “In operation 230, the liveness test apparatus obtains a second liveness test result by performing a liveness test using [based on] the IR image [of the face pursuant to ¶ [00], [0082].”); and
when a result of the liveness test is determined to be successful (Fig. 2A, ¶ [0074]),
1 ….
Bell further discloses
1 determine a result of face authentication based on information about the facial region in at least one of the color image and the infrared image and on the face image obtained from the card (Fig. 2, ¶ [0049], “Referring back to FIG. 2, If a match is not found in step 190, authentication is canceled and the system returns to step 130. If a match is found in step 190, the user is granted access to a secure system at step 200.”; and ¶¶ [0046]-[0048], “The variance in illumination may be achieved by using IR. The authentication system then determines at step 154 whether the images are taken from a live iris [information about the facial region of the IR image], as opposed to, for example, a picture.”, “If a live iris was found at step 154 and either iris passes quality checks in step 170, the user's encrypted iris template [face image] is generated from the images in step 180 and compared in step 190 to the user's enrolled iris template fetched from the server in step 120.” and ¶ [0043], “Referring to FIG. 2B, in other embodiments, the user activates the authentication system by entering a smart ID card into a card reader, as shown in step 111, where the enrolled iris template [face image] and other information are retrieved [obtained] from the smart ID card once inserted into the card reader, as shown in step 113, and later compared to generated user iris template, as shown in step 193.”).
Regarding the combination of Han-Smith and Bell, the rationale to combine is the same as provided for claim 1 due to the overlapping subject matter of claims 1 and 3.
Regarding Claim 4
Han-Smith-Bell discloses the user authentication device of claim 1, and Han further discloses
wherein the {controller (Smith ¶ [0026])} is configured to:
1 ….
Bell Further discloses
when the result of the user authentication is determined,…a (Fig. 2, ¶¶ [0046]-[0048])
Regarding the combination of Han-Smith and Bell, the rationale to combine is the same as provided for claim 1 due to the overlapping subject matter of claims 1 and 4.
Smither further discloses
a …perform a control operation to delete, from a storage, the obtained infrared image, the obtained color image, and the obtained face image (¶ [0042], “As noted previously the authentication devices described herein may include a protected environment for the temporary storage [and subsequent deletion] of biometric reference templates [as the obtained face image] received from a client device [or card],” and ¶ [0047], “More specifically, the BAIS may specify the use of a protected environment that enforces a temporary storage policy that results in the deletion of biometric reference template information from the protected environment upon the occurrence of a termination event [taken as the determination of the result of the user authentication],” i.e., Smith is silent to deleting the obtained infrared image and the obtained color image as taught by Han, but it would be obvious to delete these images too in order conserve memory in the system and to enhance the privacy security of the user. See MPEP § 2141(III), stating “Prior art is not limited just to the references being applied, but includes the understanding of one of ordinary skill in the art. The prior art reference (or references when combined) need not teach or suggest all the claim limitations, however, Office personnel must explain why the difference(s) between the prior art and the claimed invention would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.”).
Regarding the combination of Han and Smith, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the liveness test system of Han to have included the deletion feature of Smith. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate the deletion feature of Smith because Smith teaches that “…a user's biometric reference templates may be compromised by a hacker or malicious software targeting the authentication server,” see Smith ¶ [0005], and deleting biometric information when it is no longer required after a user is authenticated thwarts the efforts of hackers or malicious software.
Regarding Claim 7
Han-Smith-Bell discloses the user authentication device of claim 1, and Han further discloses
wherein the {controller (Smith ¶ [0026])} is configured to:
detect whether the facial region of the user is present in the infrared image (¶ [0067], “In an example, the color image and the IR image may be obtained by capturing [and thereby detecting] an image of a same test object, as a non-limiting example, an object attempting at user verification, and include a region of interest (ROI) of the test object. According to an example, ROIs of same type, as a non-limiting example, face regions or iris regions, may be detected in the color image and the IR image, respectively, to perform a liveness test on the test object, or ROIs of different types or with different features may [or may not] be detected in the color image and the IR image, respectively.”); and
when the facial region is not detected in the infrared image, determine the result of the user authentication to be unsuccessful (¶¶ [0055], [0067], i.e., when a facial region is not detected in the IR image, a spoofing technique a person may be attempting to spoof the system and the result of the user authentication is determined to be unsuccessful).
Regarding Claim 9
Han-Smith-Bell discloses the user authentication device of claim 1, and Han further discloses
1 …is configured to:
when the result of the liveness test is determined to be successful (Fig. 2A, ¶ [0074], i.e., upon determining a live face is being detected as opposed to an image of a person, then the facial recognition feature of Smith can be employed to complete the user authentication),
2 …,
3 ….
Bell further discloses
1 wherein the card is a security card comprising an encoded face image… (¶ [0043], “Alternatively, other types of ID [security] cards capable of storing the iris template may be used as RFID, bar codes, etc. All data stored, generated, or retrieved at any step from any system component or device within the authentication system may be encrypted [encoded], thus insuring that only encrypted data traverses the network.”; and ¶ [0045], “If a face [image] is found at step 140, the authentication system determines whether two eyes are found in the face in step 150.”), wherein the {controller (Smith ¶ [0026])}
2 extract the first facial feature from the encoded face image obtained through the card reader (Fig. 2, ¶ [0047], “If no, the authentication system returns to step 130 and again searches for a face. If either or both irises [facial feature] pass the quality checks in step 170, the authentication system proceeds to step 180 and generates [extracts] an iris templates from an iris in the capture image and sends the template to the server.”; ¶ [0043], “…the user activates the authentication system by entering a smart ID card into a card reader, as shown in step 111, where the enrolled iris template [first bio-information] and other information are retrieved from the smart ID card [obtained through the card reader] once inserted into the card reader,…”; and ¶ [0048], “If a live iris was found at step 154 and either iris passes quality checks in step 170, the user's encrypted iris template [face image] is generated from the images in step 180 and compared in step 190 to the user's enrolled iris template fetched from the server in step 120.”),
3 extract the second facial feature from at least one of the color image and the infrared image (¶ [0046], “One the one hand, the authentication system captures a series of images, for example five images, at different illuminations at step 152. The variance in illumination may be achieved by using IR. The authentication system then determines at step 154 whether the images are taken from a live iris, as opposed to, for example, a picture.”).
Regarding the combination of Han-Smith and Bell, the rationale to combine is the same as provided for claim 1 due to the overlapping subject matter of claims 1 and 9.
Regarding Independent Claims 10 and 20
With respect to independent claims 10 and 20, a corresponding reasoning as given earlier for independent claim 1 applies, mutatis mutandis, to the subject matter of claims 10 and 20. Therefore, claims 10 and 20 are rejected, for similar reasons, under the grounds set forth for claim 1.
Regarding Dependent Claims 11-13, 16, and 18
With respect to dependent claims 11-13, 16, and 18, a corresponding reasoning as given earlier for dependent claims 2-4, 7, and 9 applies, mutatis mutandis, to the subject matter of claims 11-13, 16, and 18. Therefore, claims 11-13, 16, and 18 are rejected, for similar reasons, under the grounds set forth for claims 2-4, 7, and 9.
Regarding Dependent Claim 19
With respect to dependent claim 19, a corresponding reasoning as given earlier for independent claim 1 applies, mutatis mutandis, to the subject matter of claim 19. Therefore, claim 19 is rejected, for similar reasons, under the grounds set forth for claim 1.
B. Claims 5-6, 8, 14-15, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Han in view of Smith and Bell, and further in view of Ackerman et al. (US 10,943,138, “Ackerman”).
Regarding Claim 5
Han-Smith-Bell discloses the user authentication device of claim 1, and Han further discloses
wherein the {controller (Smith ¶ [0026])} is configured to:
verify whether a reflection point shown when the infrared light is reflected by a…1 of the user is present in the infrared image (¶ [0102], “The IR image may be obtained when IR light emitted from an IR light source 530 is reflected by the user 510 and then the reflected IR light is sensed by the IR image sensor 535;” ¶ [0060], “In addition, the IR image may also be used to determine a reflection feature [comprising a reflection point of the pupil of the user that is obtained when an IR reflection of the iris is captured] of the test object and a texture feature indicated by reflection of IR light to perform the liveness test.” and ¶¶ [0062]-[0064], “As a non-limiting example, the liveness test model may be a neural network-based liveness (or liveness and verification) model and configured so that, upon reading from a memory of its trained parameters by one or more processors, the one or more processors may implement the liveness test model for an input image to calculate, determine, or extract a liveness score specific to the trained objective, e.g., a liveness score of a color image, a liveness score of an infrared image, and/or a liveness score of a composite image.”); and
when the reflection point is verified not to be present in the infrared image, determine the result of the user authentication to be unsuccessful (¶ [0055], “An invalid user may use a spoofing technique [where the reflection point is verified not to be present in the infrared image] in an attempt to obtain a false acceptance by a user verification system. As a non-limiting example, the invalid user may present, to a color camera of such a user verification system, a color image, a video, a replica, and the like in which a face of a valid user appears, to obtain a false acceptance in facial verification. For another example verification that may alternatively perform iris [and thereby pupil] detection using infrared (IR) image, an invalid user may present, to an IR camera of such alternate user verification system, an IR image, a video, a replica, and the like in which an iris region of a valid user appears, to obtain a false acceptance in iris verification. Thus, a liveness test may also be performed [to determine the result of the user authentication to be unsuccessful] to prevent such false acceptances by filtering out, or blocking, an attempt for the verification made based on such spoofing techniques.”).
Han-Smith-Bell doesn’t disclose
1 … {infrared light is reflected by a} pupil…
Ackerman, however, discloses
1 … {infrared light is reflected by a} pupil… (Col. 33:38-59, “In some embodiments, the system 550 can be used in combination with alternative systems described herein, with the determination of each system being weighted for the final decision of whether the subject is a live subject or a facsimile. For example, the system 550 can incorporate pupillometry to provide additional anti-spoofing protection for iris recognition under low ambient light conditions;” and Col. 21:15-28, “In one embodiment, the infrared stimulus that results in retinal [and pupil] reflection can fire only once for a short time during the biometric transaction or multiple times with intervals of time in-between. The analysis module 112 would know which frame in a video or image 212 displays the retinal reflection that would manifest as a bright pupil and would be easily measured.”)
Regarding the combination of Han-Smith-Bell and Ackerman, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the liveness test system of Han-Smith-Bell to have included the pupil feature of Ackerman. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate the pupil feature of Ackerman because Ackerman teaches “pupillometry [can] provide additional anti-spoofing protection for iris recognition under low ambient light conditions.” See Ackerman Col. 33:38-59.
Regarding Claim 6
Han-Smith-Bell discloses the user authentication device of claim 4, and Ackerman further discloses
wherein the {controller (Smith ¶ [0026])} is configured to when the reflection point of the pupil is verified to be present in the infrared image
(Col. 21:15-28, “In one embodiment, the infrared stimulus that results in retinal reflection can fire only once for a short time during the biometric transaction or multiple times with intervals of time in-between. The analysis module 112 would know which frame in a video or image 212 displays the retinal reflection that would manifest as a bright pupil [and thereby verify the presence of the pupil in the infrared image] and would be easily measured. All other frames of the image 212 could contain dark pupils. A presentation spoof attack that used artificial means to simulate a bright pupil would need to produce the response at the exact moment when the stimulus occurs from the illumination source 202.”),
1 ….
Regarding the combination of Han-Smith-Bell and Ackerman, the rationale to combine is the same as provided for claim 5 due to the overlapping subject matter of claims 5 and 6.
Smith further discloses
1 perform the face authentication based on at least one of the color image and the infrared image and on the face image stored in the card (¶ [0093], “The authentication device will then attempt to perform biometric [face] authentication of a user using the biometric reference template [as the face image stored in the card] and biometric test information [comprising a color image] that [was] obtained with the selected sensor(s) [e.g., the “selected sensor” is the “color camera” as disclosed by Han Fig. 5A, ¶ [0102]],” i.e., upon the combined liveness-authentication system of Han-Smith determining that the face captured by the camera is that of a live user as determined by the IR liveness test of Han, then the authentication proceeds to complete the user authentication process via facial recognition).
Regarding the combination of Han and Smith, the rationale to combine is the same as provided for claim 1 due to the overlapping subject matter of claims 1 and 6.
Regarding Claim 8
Han-Smith-Bell discloses the user authentication device of claim 1, and Han further discloses
wherein the {controller (Smith ¶ [0026])} is configured to:
1 …; and
2 ….
Ackerman further discloses
1 verify whether at least one of transmission and saturation of the infrared light occurs in the infrared image (Col. 30:1-27, “Because the near infrared illumination strikes the smooth and shiny cornea of the eye before scattering from the iris, a specular reflection from the cornea is typically present in every iris [infrared] image 564. The specular reflection (e.g., specularity) is typically a small spot within the iris image 564 that is saturated or nearly saturated because of the intensity of the glint of light from a small area of the reflective cornea. Because the specularity is a reflection of the near infrared illuminator of the system 550, the spectrum of light of the specularity is that of the near infrared illuminator. Although there may be other specular reflections that return to the camera 556 due to other sources of light incident upon the cornea (e.g., sunlight or room light), these other specularities are typically dimmer than that applied by the near infrared illumination source 552 and are always in a different place on the cornea than that of the near infrared illumination source 552. … Therefore, the system 550 can detect [and thereby verify the presence of saturation] in advance with relatively high precision where the near infrared specularity is expected to appear.”); and
2 when the at least one of the transmission and the saturation is verified to occur, determine the result of the user authentication to be unsuccessful (Col. 30:1-27, “Therefore, the system 550 can detect [and thereby verify the presence of saturation] in advance with relatively high precision where the near infrared specularity is expected to appear,” i.e., if the near-IR specularity is not present where it is expected to occur, then the user authentication is unsuccessful).
Regarding the combination of Han-Smith-Bell and Ackerman, the rationale to combine is the same as provided for claim 5 due to the overlapping subject matter of claims 5 and 8.
Regarding Dependent Claims 14-15 and 17
With respect to dependent claims 14-15 and 17, a corresponding reasoning as given earlier for dependent claims 5-6 and 8 applies, mutatis mutandis, to the subject matter of claims 14-15 and 17. Therefore, claims 14-15 and 17 are rejected, for similar reasons, under the grounds set forth for claims 5-6 and 8.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to D'ARCY WINSTON STRAUB whose telephone number is (303)297-4405. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00-5:00 Mountain Time.
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, WILLIAM KORZUCH can be reached at (571)272-7589. 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.
/D'Arcy Winston Straub/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2491
Prosecution Insights