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 .
Drawings
The drawings were received on 11/22/2024. These drawings are accepted.
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: Processing unit in claims 10-12 and 14-18.
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
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.
Claims 1-3, 7-8, 10-13 and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ivanisov et al. (US20170161578, hereinafter “Ivanisov”)
(Claims 1-3, 7-8 and 10 are listed below Claims 11-13 and 17-18)
Claim 11. (Currently Amended) Ivanisov teaches A biometric recognition system ([0004] “biometric systems to differentiate between a real (or live) eye and a spoof (or fake) eye that may be presented to an imaging system for authentication purposes.”) the system ([0036] “camera IC has pixels which exhibit responses that vary according to polarization characteristics of incident light”) ([0032] “imaging apparatus 102 for acquiring images of a subject's eye”)which images are captured utilizing polarized light reflected at the eye ([0036] “images of an eye or iris that are acquired in response to activation of the polarized light source IL”) ([0036] “camera IC has pixels which exhibit responses that vary according to polarization characteristics of incident light”) ([0053] “A first image of a subject's eye may be acquired while at least one of the selectively activatable or interposable polarizing filters is activated/interposed in the optical path, while a second image of the subject's eye may be acquired while at least one of the selectively activatable polarizing filters is deactivated or removed from the optical path.”) wherein for each image being captured a different polarization rotation is selected; ([0053] “In another embodiment instead of activating or de-activating, one of the polarizing filters can be re-configured to change the direction of polarization, for example by introducing or activating an element that rotates the polarization plane (e.g. using a liquid crystal). The first and second images may thereafter be analyzed for evidence of birefringence.”)
the system ([0085] “The computing system 1002 comprises one or more processors 1004 and at least one memory 1006. Processor 1004 is configured to execute program instructions”)([0035] “analyze eye images obtained at imaging camera IC to determine whether an acquired eye image exhibits evidence of birefringence (and particularly birefringence in the cornea) and/or whether the detected birefringence is characteristic of the birefringence exhibited by a real eye.”) determine, by matching ([0044] “comparison of the first and second images”) the detected birefringent cornea features ([0044] “for the purposes of identifying differences between eye images within each of said first and second eye images…and analysing the image signal along the angular co-ordinates by searching for a periodic component or for a periodically occurring iris pattern or texture that has 4 periods per 360 degrees along angular axis θ (i.e. which periodically occurs with a spatial periodicity of 90 degrees along angular axis θ).” Is explaining the process of matching the birefringent cornea features between the captured image with the expected image. The claimed expected image is understood to be the same as Ivanisov’s second image which is kept in the repository and compared to the first for authentication as a real eye as stated in Ivanisov et al [0065] “second set of image information is generated based on information extracted from the second image. Step 910 thereafter comprises storing the first and second sets of biometric information/first and second biometric templates (TN, TP) in a biometric template repository and/or associating the first and second sets of image information with a subject to whom the first eye corresponds.” The claimed expected birefringent cornea features are understood to be the person’s previously captured image in light of instant specifications [0012] and [0084] which explains that the expected birefringent cornea features are from a reference image. )
taking into account the polarization configuration, ([0055] “images as a result of (a) illumination by a polarized light source or (b) by selective activation of polarization sensitive pixels within an imaging camera (or both),”) whether the detected birefringent cornea features captured images; ([0022] “The first and second images may thereafter be analyzed for evidence of birefringence. As illustrated in the results of FIG. 3, when presented with a real eye, a second image acquired under illumination from second illuminator IL2.4 exhibits spots or regions which have different image characteristics or texture in comparison with the same spots or regions in a first image that has been acquired under illumination from first illuminator IL1.4.” The images being acquired under illumination is understood to be the same as the claimed detected birefringent cornea features are correctly rendered In light of instant specifications [0055] because the spots and regions are acquired )
and if so: determine that the eye ([0044] “The difference in the magnitude and/or phase of this periodic component between the images of an eye acquired under different polarizations may be used to distinguish a real eye from a fake eye.”)
Claim 12. (Currently Amended) Ivanisov teaches The biometric recognition system ([0044] “comparison of the first and second images for the purposes of identifying differences between eye images within each of said first and second eye images may be achieved by mapping image data based on polar co-ordinates approximately centred at the iris within an imaged eye, and analysing the image signal along the angular co-ordinates by searching for a periodic component or for a periodically occurring iris pattern or texture that has 4 periods per 360 degrees along angular axis θ …The difference in the magnitude and/or phase of this periodic component between the images of an eye acquired under different polarizations may be used to distinguish a real eye from a fake eye.”)
Claim 13. (Currently Amended) Ivanisov teaches The biometric recognition system claim 11, wherein the polarization orientation of the light is selected to be orthogonal in relation to the polarization orientation at the camera([0038] “the first and second polarizing fΩ filters may comprise linear polarizers and the angle of polarization of the first polarizing filter and the angle of polarization of the second polarizing filter may be perpendicular to each other.” The claimed orthogonal is synonymous to perpendicular as defined: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orthogonality_(mathematics) )
Claim 17. (Currently Amended) Ivanisov teaches The biometric recognition system claim 11, the processing unit ([0044] “for the purposes of identifying differences between eye images within each of said first and second eye images…and analysing the image signal along the angular co-ordinates by searching for a periodic component or for a periodically occurring iris pattern or texture that has 4 periods per 360 degrees along angular axis θ (i.e. which periodically occurs with a spatial periodicity of 90 degrees along angular axis θ).”
Ivanisov [0044] is explaining the process of matching the birefringent cornea features between the captured image with the expected image. The expected image is the second image which is kept in the repository and compared to the first for authentication as a real eye as stated in Ivanisov et al [0065] “second set of image information is generated based on information extracted from the second image. Step 910 thereafter comprises storing the first and second sets of biometric information/first and second biometric templates (TN, TP) in a biometric template repository and/or associating the first and second sets of image information with a subject to whom the first eye corresponds.” The claimed expected birefringent cornea features are understood to be the person’s previously captured image in light of instant specifications [0012] and [0084] which explains that the expected birefringent cornea features are from a reference image. )
Claim 18. (Currently Amended) Ivanisov teaches The biometric recognition system of claim 11, the processing unit ([0036] “if a specific (or predefined) type of iris pattern(s) or iris texture is observed in images”) face or periocular features; and to compare the detected iris, face or periocular features with previously enrolled iris, face or periocular features; ([0044] “comparison of the first and second images”) and if there is a match an individual the detected iris, face or periocular features is authenticated([0036] “if a specific (or predefined) type of iris pattern(s) or iris texture is observed in images of an eye or iris that are acquired in response to activation of the polarized light source IL and simultaneous activation of polarization of the imaging camera IC—the invention enables the conclusion that the imaged eye is a real eye.”)
Claim 1. (Currently Amended) The method herein has been executed and performed by the system of claim 11 and is likewise rejected.
Claim 2. (Currently Amended) The method herein has been executed and performed by the system of claim 12 and is likewise rejected.
Claim 3. (Currently Amended) The method herein has been executed and performed by the system of claim 13 and is likewise rejected.
Claim 7. (Currently Amended) The method herein has been executed and performed by the system of claim 17 and is likewise rejected.
Claim 8. (Currently Amended) The method herein has been executed and performed by the system of claim 18 and is likewise rejected.
Claim 10. (Currently Amended) Ivanisov teaches A computer program product comprising a non-transitory computer readable medium, the computer readable medium having a computer program embodied thereon, the computer program comprising computer-executable instructions for causing a biometric recognition system to perform the method of claim 1 when the computer-executable instructions are executed on a processing unit included in the biometric recognition system. ([0024] “The invention includes a computer program product for biometric enrollment or biometric authentication, comprising a non-transitory computer usable medium having a computer readable program code embodied therein, the computer readable program code comprising instructions” and [0085] “The computing system 1002 comprises one or more processors 1004 and at least one memory 1006. Processor 1004 is configured to execute program instructions”)
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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.
Claims 6 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ivanisov et al. (US20170161578, hereinafter “Ivanisov”) and in view of Tussy et al (US20190213312, hereinafter “Tussy”)
Claim 6. (Currently Amended) The method herein has been executed and performed by the system of claim 16 and is likewise rejected.
Claim 16. (Currently Amended) Ivanisov teaches The biometric recognition system claim 11, the processing unit ([0022] “The first and second images may thereafter be analyzed for evidence of birefringence. As illustrated in the results of FIG. 3, when presented with a real eye, a second image acquired under illumination from second illuminator IL2.4 exhibits spots or regions which have different image characteristics or texture in comparison with the same spots or regions in a first image that has been acquired under illumination from first illuminator IL1.4.” The images being acquired under illumination is understood to be the same as the claimed detected birefringent cornea features are correctly rendered In light of instant specifications [0055] because the spots and regions are acquired )
Ivanisov does not explicitly teach if after a set number of failed attempts have been made for determining that the detected birefringent cornea features
Tussy teaches if after a set number of failed attempts have been made ([0129] “the server 120 may allow three consecutive failed login attempts”) for determining that the detected cornea features ([0177] “During authentication imaging, the colors displayed by the device are projected onto the user's face, and are reflected off the user's eyes (the cornea of the eyes) … The camera on the user's mobile device detects the colors that are reflected off the user's skin or eyes (or other surface) and generates color data indicating the colors detected based on the screen projection. This data may be returned to the authentication server to determine if the color sequence or pattern sent to the mobile device matches that known sequence or pattern projected by the screen of the user device. Based on this comparison at the authentication server the authentication is a success or denied.” Is understood to be the same as the claimed detected cornea features are correctly rendered in the images) the individual ([0129] “the server 120 may allow three consecutive failed login attempts before requiring a user name and password. If in one of the attempts, the required level of correspondence is met, then the user may be verified, and access may be granted.”)
It would have been obvious to persons of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ivanisov to have if a set number of failed attempts are made for determining if the cornea features are correctly rendered, then the individual is required to enter credentials before further attempts are allowed as taught by Tussy to arrive at the claimed invention discussed above. The motivation for the proposed modification would have been because (Tussy et al [0003] “there is a growing need for ways to securely access user accounts via electronic devices.”)
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-5 and 14-15 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Ivanisov et al US20170161578 discloses detecting birefringent features of a cornea of a user at various light polarization angles and aligning the images with a stored image captured of the user to authenticate the user but does not render obvious the claimed combination as a whole.
Tussy et al US20190213312 discloses detecting a pattern reflected from the cornea of the user for use in authenticating the user but does not render obvious the claimed combination as a whole.
Kondo et al US20030152252 discloses measuring an iris pattern based on polarized light and compensating for an inclination of the face by rotating the iris code to a previously determined range for matching so that the minimum hamming distance can be obtained but does not render obvious the claimed combination as a whole
Yu et al US20110142297 discloses the image being digitally rotated to match the reference image line but does not render obvious the claimed combination as a whole.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure:
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OWAIS MEMON whose telephone number is (571)272-2168. The examiner can normally be reached M-F (7:00am - 4:00pm) CST.
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, Gregory Morse can be reached at (571) 272-3838. 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.
/OWAIS I MEMON/Examiner, Art Unit 2663
Prosecution Insights