CTNF 18/990,163 CTNF 89480 Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Detailed Action 2. Claims 1-27 are pending in Instant Application. Information Disclosure Statement 3. The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 12/20/2024 and 09/19/2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner. Priority 4. Examiner acknowledges that this application claims the benefit of Japanese Patent Application No. 2024-002790, filed January 11, 2024, which is hereby incorporated by reference herein in its entirety. 07-30-03-h AIA Claim Interpretation 07-30-03 AIA 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. 07-30-05 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 use the word “means” or “step” but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “a detection unit configured to detect an object”, “a collation unit configured to collate the object detected by the detection unit”, “an update unit configured to, based on the collation score”, and “an authentication unit configured to authenticate the object” in independent claims 1 and 12 . Based on Fig. 2, it appears they have structure and part of ‘Main Object Computation Unit’. Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. If applicant intends 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 remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 07-30-02 AIA 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. 07-34-01 Claims 4-5, 7, 15-16, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claim limitations “a first updating method” and “a second updating method” in claim 4 and 15 are unclear as the limitations “a first updating method” and “a second updating method” are not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree and it is unclear as to what kind of update is performed by “a first updating method” and “a second updating method”, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Appropriate action is requested. Claim limitation “update the authentication score according to exponential moving averages with different smoothing coefficients” in claim 5 and 16 are unclear as the limitation “update the authentication score according to exponential moving averages with different smoothing coefficients” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree and it is unclear because it does not describe that kind of value the “exponential moving averages with different smoothing coefficients” is obtained for, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Appropriate action is requested. Claim limitation “a third updating method” in claims 7 and 18 are unclear as the limitation “a third updating method” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree and it is unclear because it does not describe that kind of update “a third updating method” is obtained for, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Appropriate action is requested. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 07-07-aia AIA 07-07 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 – 07-12-aia AIA (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. 07-15-03-aia AIA 5. Claim s 1-3, 10-14, 21-23, and 25-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a) (2) as being anticipated by US 2025/0069435 issued to Shimizu . As per claim 1, Shimizu teaches an authentication apparatus, comprising: at least one processor or circuit and a memory storing instructions to cause the at least one processor or circuit to perform operations (Shimizu: Claim 1 - an authentication apparatus comprising at least one memory storing instructions; and at least one processor configured to execute the instructions) of the following units: a detection unit configured to detect an object from an inputted image (Shimizu: Fig. 2, ¶ 0028 - The face detection unit 112 detects a face area (face image) from the image data acquired by the image acquisition unit 111) ; a collation unit configured to collate the object detected by the detection unit with an authentication subject registered in advance (Shimizu: ¶ 0032 - at first, in the first face authentication, the collation unit 114 acquires the registered image of each user from the face information storage unit 113. The collation unit 114 collates the face image detected by the face detection unit 112 with the registered image of each user that has been acquired) , and output a collation score indicating a similarity degree between the object and the authentication subject (Shimizu: ¶ 0033 - the collation unit 114 calculates a collation score indicating a degree of match between the face image of the subject and the registered image or a degree of similarity between them. In the following description, the higher the degree of match or the degree of similarity, the higher the collation score is) ; an update unit configured to, based on the collation score, update an authentication score, which is an evaluation value that indicates a degree to which the object matches the authentication subject (Shimizu: ¶ 0034 - When the face information storage unit 113 already stores the face image which has been successful in face authentication, the face information storage unit 113 may overwrite (update) the face image which has been successfully authenticated with the face image which has been successfully authenticated in the latest face authentication) ; and an authentication unit configured to authenticate the object based on the authentication score, wherein the update unit changes a method of updating the authentication score based on a magnitude relationship between the collation score and the authentication score (Shimizu: ¶ 0052, ¶ 0053 - the collation unit 114 determines whether or not the collation score is equal to or larger than the threshold of the authentication score. If the collation score of each registered image is smaller than the threshold of the authentication score, the collation unit 114 determines that the first face authentication has failed and if the collation score of the registered image of the user is equal to or larger than the threshold of the authentication score, the collation unit 114 determines that the first face authentication has been successful) . As per claim 2, Shimizu teaches the authentication apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the detection unit detects an object from each of inputted continuous images (Shimizu: Fig. 2, ¶ 0028 - the face detection unit detects a face area (face image) (object) from the image data acquired by the image acquisition unit) . As per claim 3, Shimizu teaches the authentication apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the at least one processor or circuit is configured to further function as a selection unit configured to select a subject to collate with the authentication subject from objects detected by the detection unit (Shimizu: ¶ 0036 - the collation unit 114 temporarily adds, in the second face authentication, the acquired face image which has been successfully authenticated in the past to the registered image, and collates the registered image and the face image which has been successfully authenticated in the past with the face image of the subject) . As per claim 10, Shimizu teaches the authentication apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the update unit, for an object for which collation with the authentication subject is performed for the first time, updates the authentication score by a fourth update method that sets the collation score as the authentication score. (Shimizu: ¶ 0037 - when the score of collation with the registered image of any user or the face image which has been successfully authenticated in the past is equal to or larger than the first threshold, the collation unit 114 determines that the second face authentication has been successful. The collation unit 114 corresponds to the authentication means 22 shown in FIG. 1) . As per claim 11, the claim resembles claim 1 and is rejected under the same rationale. As per claim 12, the claim resembles claim 1 and is rejected under the same rationale. As per claim 13, the claim resembles claim 2 and is rejected under the same rationale. As per claim 14, the claim resembles claim 3 and is rejected under the same rationale. As per claim 21, the claim resembles claim 10 and is rejected under the same rationale. As per claim 22, Shimizu teaches the image capturing apparatus according to claim 12, wherein the determination unit, in a case where a plurality of objects are authenticated as the same authentication subject, determines the object with the highest authentication score as the main object (Shimizu: ¶ 0059 - the face image of the user having the highest collation score in the first face authentication) . As per claim 23, Shimizu teaches the image capturing apparatus according to claim 12, wherein the determination unit, in a case where a plurality of objects are authenticated as different authentication subjects, determines the object authenticated as an authentication subject with the highest user designated priority order as the main object (Shimizu: ¶ 0060 - it is considered that a registered image having a low collation score in the first face authentication is a registered image of a person different from the subject, and thus it is considered that the collation score in the second face authentication is low as well) . As per claim 25, the claim resembles claim 1 and is rejected under the same rationale. As per claim 26, the claim resembles claim 1 and is rejected under the same rationale while Shimizu also teaches a non-transitory computer readable storage medium storing a program for causing a computer to execute each step (Shimizu: ¶ 0100 - a non-transitory computer readable medium storing a program for causing a computer to execute processing) . As per claim 27, the claim resembles claim 1 and is rejected under the same rationale while Shimizu also teaches a non-transitory computer readable storage medium storing a program for causing a computer to execute each step (Shimizu: ¶ 0100 - a non-transitory computer readable medium storing a program for causing a computer to execute processing) . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 4, 15, and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2025/0069435 issued to Shimizu in view of JP2013117876A issued to Satoshi et al. (Satoshi) (Applicant IDS). As per claim 4, Shimizu teaches the authentication apparatus according to claim 1 however does not explicitly teach wherein the update unit, in a case where the collation score is smaller than the authentication score, updates the authentication score using a first update method, and in a case where the collation score is greater than or equal to the authentication score, updates the authentication score using a second update method. Satoshi however explicitly teaches wherein the update unit, in a case where the collation score is smaller than the authentication score, updates the authentication score using a first update method, and in a case where the collation score is greater than or equal to the authentication score, updates the authentication score using a second update method (Satoshi: ¶ 0063 - when the authentication threshold Ta of the authentication IDa is smaller than the predetermined value B with respect to the similarity Sa of the authentication IDa, the authentication threshold Ta is added by a predetermined correction amount ΔT, and the similarity Sa is added to the similarity Sa. It corrects to authentication threshold Ta which approached; and when the authentication threshold Ta of the authentication IDa is larger than the predetermined value A with respect to the similarity Sa of the authentication IDa, the authentication threshold Ta is subtracted by a predetermined correction amount ΔT, it corrects to authentication threshold Ta which approached similarity Sa) . It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of Shimizu in view of Santoshi to teach wherein the update unit, in a case where the collation score is smaller than the authentication score, updates the authentication score using a first update method, and in a case where the collation score is greater than or equal to the authentication score, updates the authentication score using a second update method. One would be motivated to do so as when the authentication threshold Ta of the authentication IDa is smaller than the predetermined value B with respect to the similarity Sa of the authentication IDa, the authentication threshold Ta is added by a predetermined correction amount ΔT, and the similarity Sa is added to the similarity Sa. It corrects to authentication threshold Ta which approached; and when the authentication threshold Ta of the authentication IDa is larger than the predetermined value A with respect to the similarity Sa of the authentication IDa, the authentication threshold Ta is subtracted by a predetermined correction amount ΔT, it corrects to authentication threshold Ta which approached similarity Sa (Satoshi: ¶ 0063) . As per claim 15, the claim resembles claim 4 and is rejected under the same rationale. As per claim 24, Shimizu teaches the image capturing apparatus according to claim 12 however does not explicitly teach wherein focusing control or exposure control is performed preferentially for the object determined as the main object by the determination unit. Satoshi however explicitly teaches wherein focusing control or exposure control is performed preferentially for the object determined as the main object by the determination unit (Satoshi: ¶ 0076 - it is preferable to set the upper limit and the lower limit which can correct the authentication threshold. By setting the upper and lower limit values, it is possible to suppress excessive correction to the authentication threshold and to prevent occurrence of an extreme false authentication) . It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of Shimizu in view of Santoshi to teach wherein focusing control or exposure control is performed preferentially for the object determined as the main object by the determination unit. One would be motivated to do so as it is preferable to set the upper limit and the lower limit which can correct the authentication threshold. By setting the upper and lower limit values, it is possible to suppress excessive correction to the authentication threshold and to prevent occurrence of an extreme false authentication (Satoshi: ¶ 0076) . 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 5 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2025/0069435 issued to Shimizu in view of JP201311787A issued to Satoshi et al. (Satoshi) (Applicant IDS) and further in view of CN117333874A issued to Yan et al. (Yan). As per claim 5, the modified teaching of Shimizu teaches the authentication apparatus according to claim 4 however does not explicitly teach wherein the first update method and the second update method update the authentication score according to exponential moving averages with different smoothing coefficients. Yan however explicitly teaches wherein the first update method and the second update method update the authentication score according to exponential moving averages with different smoothing coefficients (Yan: Claim 1 - the parameters of the segmentation model use an exponential moving average algorithm to update the parameters while corresponding smoothing coefficient represents the corresponding training step which is used to adjust the weight) . It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the modified teaching of Shimizu in view of Yan to teach the first update method and the second update method update the authentication score according to exponential moving averages with different smoothing coefficients. One would be motivated to do so as the parameters of the segmentation model use an exponential moving average algorithm to update the parameters while corresponding smoothing coefficient represents the corresponding training step which is used to adjust the weight (Yan: Claim 1) . As per claim 16, the claim resembles claim 5 and is rejected under the same rationale . 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 7 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2025/0069435 issued to Shimizu in view of US 2022/0148354 issued to Ozono et al. (Ozono). As per claim 7, Shimizu teaches the authentication apparatus according to claim 1 however does not explicitly teach wherein the update unit, in a case where a collation score of an object cannot be acquired, updates the authentication score using a third update method. Ozono however explicitly teaches wherein the update unit, in a case where a collation score of an object cannot be acquired, updates the authentication score using a third update method (Ozono: ¶ 0214 - in a case where the face collation is not normally completed, or a valid collation result whose collation score exceeds the threshold value cannot be obtained, only the information included in the request from face authentication machine may be stored as the authentication log) . It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of Shimizu in view of Ozono to teach wherein the update unit, in a case where a collation score of an object cannot be acquired, updates the authentication score using a third update method. One would be motivated to do so as in a case where the face collation is not normally completed, or a valid collation result whose collation score exceeds the threshold value cannot be obtained, only the information included in the request from face authentication machine may be stored as the authentication log (Ozono: ¶ 0214) . As per claim 18, the claim resembles claim 1 and is rejected under the same rationale . Allowable Subject Matter 12-151-08 AIA 07-43 12-51-08 Claim s 6, 8, 9, 17, 19, and 20 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. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SM AZIZUR RAHMAN whose telephone number is (571) 270-7360. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F Telework; If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ali Shayanfar can be reached on 571-270-1050. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000. /SM A RAHMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2434 Application/Control Number: 18/990,163 Page 2 Art Unit: 2434 Application/Control Number: 18/990,163 Page 3 Art Unit: 2434 Application/Control Number: 18/990,163 Page 4 Art Unit: 2434 Application/Control Number: 18/990,163 Page 5 Art Unit: 2434 Application/Control Number: 18/990,163 Page 6 Art Unit: 2434 Application/Control Number: 18/990,163 Page 7 Art Unit: 2434 Application/Control Number: 18/990,163 Page 8 Art Unit: 2434 Application/Control Number: 18/990,163 Page 9 Art Unit: 2434 Application/Control Number: 18/990,163 Page 10 Art Unit: 2434 Application/Control Number: 18/990,163 Page 11 Art Unit: 2434 Application/Control Number: 18/990,163 Page 12 Art Unit: 2434 Application/Control Number: 18/990,163 Page 13 Art Unit: 2434
Prosecution Insights