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 .
Priority
Acknowledgement is made of Applicant’s claim of this application being a National Stage application of the PCT Application No. PCT/CN2023/132694, filed on November 20, 2023. As well as acknowledgement of priority to CN202311518703.9 with filing date of November 15, 2023.
Drawings
The 1-page drawings have been considered and placed on record in the file.
Status of Claims
Claims 11-18 are pending.
Claim Objections
Claims 11-18 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 11-18 recite multiple characters capitalized throughout the claim, each claim begins with a capital letter and ends with a period, MPEP 608.01(m).
Claim 11 (similarly claim 18) recites:
"…fingerprint images for fingerprint recognition of the same use…" should be "…fingerprint images of a current user for fingerprint recognition…";
"…According to the gray value of the pixel block in the fingerprint part…" should be "…according to a gray value of a pixel block in a fingerprint part …”;
"… collected fingerprint image, the first gray threshold and the second gray threshold…" should be "… collected fingerprint image, a first gray threshold and a second gray threshold…";
"…the comprehensive similarity value…" should be "…a comprehensive similarity value…";
"…the preset similarity threshold" should be "a preset similarity threshold…";
"…the currently collected fingerprint image…" should be "…the fingerprint image of the current user…";
"…The gray value of the pixel block in the fingerprint part…" should be "…the gray value of the pixel block in the fingerprint part…";
"…the optimal threshold corresponding to the fingerprint image is extracted as the first gray value data…" should be "…an optimal threshold corresponding to the fingerprint image is extracted as a first gray value data…”;
"…fingerprint image is extracted as the second gray value data…" should be "…fingerprint image is extracted as a second gray value data…";
"…Using the first gray value data to set the first candidate scale threshold…" should be "…using the first gray value data to set a first candidate scale threshold…";
"…Using the second gray value data to set the second candidate gray threshold…" should be "…using the second gray value data to set a second candidate gray threshold…";
Claim 12 (similarly claim 16) recites:
"…with the corresponding fingerprint position…" should be "…with corresponding fingerprint position…";
"…the fingerprint reference image that the user has entered into the database…" should be "…a fingerprint reference image that the current user has entered into a database…"
"…obtain the similarity values…" should be "…obtain the comprehensive similarity value for each…".
Claim 13 (similarly claim 17) recites:
"…the first type of pixel block" should be "a first type of pixel block…"
"…the target area containing the number of block of…" should be "…a target area containing a number of blocks of…"
"…exceeding the preset threshold value of the first block number in the first target area is called as the first target area…" should be "…exceeding a preset threshold value of a first block number in the target area is called as the first target area…"
"…as the second type of pixel block…” should be "…as a second type of pixel block.."
"…the second block number in the target target area is called as the second target area…" should be "…a second block number in the target area is called as a second target area…".
Claim 14 (similarly claim 18) recites”:
"…and the ratio between the first" should be "and a ratio between the first…"
"…the first block count threshold is smaller than the second block count threshold" should be "a first block count threshold is smaller than a second block count threshold…".
Claim 15 recites:
“…fingerprint images for the same user for fingerprint recognition…” should be “…fingerprint images for a current user for fingerprint recognition..”
“…According to the gray value of the pixel block of the fingerprint part…” should be “…according to a gray value of a pixel block of a fingerprint part…”
"…images for the same user for fingerprint…" should be "…image for a user for fingerprint…"
“…The first gray value data module…” should be “…a first gray value data module…”
“…The second gray value data module…” should be “…a second gray value data module…”
“…The first candidate gray threshold module…” should be “…a first candidate gray threshold module…”
“…The second candidate gray threshold module…” should be “…a second candidate gray threshold module…”
Claim 17 recites:
"…The first type of pixel block module…" should be "…a first type of pixel block module…"
"…The first image block module…" should be "…a first image block module…"
"…The second type of pixel block determination module…" should be "…a second type of pixel block determination module…"
"…The area region retrieval module…" should be "…an area region retrieval module…"
"…The second target area module…" should be "…a second target area module…”.
Appropriate corrections are required.
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 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.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpretated under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. Because the claim limitations use 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 limitations are, “…fingerprint recognition access control system…” in claims 15-18; "…image acquisition module…", "…threshold acquisition module…", "…Image block acquisition module…", "…similarity judgment module…", "…gray value extraction module…", "…first gray value data module…", "…second gray value data module…", "…first candidate gray threshold module…", "…Second candidates gray threshold module…", and"…Threshold comparison module…" in claims 15; "…similarity value comparison module…" and "…similarity value acquisition module…" in claim 16; "…The first type of pixel block module…", "…The first image block module…", "…The second type of pixel block determination module…", "…The area region retrieval module…", and "…The second target area module…" in claim 17.
Because of these claim limitations being interpretated under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they 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 these limitations 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 § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Claims 15-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Specifically, as noted in the previous section above, claims recite "fingerprint recognition access control system", "image acquisition module", "threshold acquisition module", "Image block acquisition module", "similarity judgment module", "gray value extraction module", "first gray value data module", "second gray value data module", "first candidate gray threshold module", "Second candidates gray threshold module", "Threshold comparison module", invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f). The written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. Applicant’s specification is devoid of any corresponding structures that perform the functions in the claims. Accordingly, claim 15-18 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) for lack of written description.
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.
Claims 11-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, regards as the invention. Specially, claims 11 and 15 contain more than one period (.) throughout various limitations: “…fingerprint image are obtained. Wherein, the first…”. A claim must only consist of one sentence, and therefore one period at the end. As drafted, claim 11 and 15 do not particularly point out and distinctly define the metes and bounds of the subject matter, rendering this claim indefinite.
Therefore, claim 11 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), because one of ordinary skill in the art would be able to ascertain with reasonable certainty what the scope of the claim is. Claim 12-14 and 16-18, dependent on claim 11 and 15, respectively, are similarly rejected.
Claim 15-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), as being indefinite for failing to particular point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or joint inventor, regards as the invention. Specifically, claim limitations "fingerprint recognition access control system", "image acquisition module", "threshold acquisition module", "Image block acquisition module", "similarity judgment module", "gray value extraction module", "first gray value data module", "second gray value data module", "first candidate gray threshold module", "Second candidates gray threshold module", "Threshold comparison module", "similarity value comparison module", "similarity value acquisition module", "The first type of pixel block module", "The first image block invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. Applicant's specification is devoid of any structure that performs the functions in the claims. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 11-18 are not rejected over prior art and would be allowable if: (i) the rejection of these claims under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), is overcome. Regarding claims 15-18, the claims would be allowable if: the rejection of these claims under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and 35 U.S.C. 112(b), is overcome.
The following examiner’s stated reasons for allowance: Regarding claim 11, the closet prior art reference, Zhu et al. (CN115131831A - translation from Espacenet) and Teng et al. (CN106295559B - translation from Espacenet) teaches “A fingerprint recognition access control method (Zhu paragraph [0001] "fingerprint image segmentation method and apparatus, electronic device and storage medium") is characterized in that the fingerprint recognition access control method (Zhu paragraph [0003] "Fingerprint image segmentation is a crucial step in fingerprint recognition technology, and the segmentation results affect the accuracy of fingerprint recognition") includes:
Real-time collection of fingerprint images for fingerprint recognition of the same use (Zhu paragraph [0037] "After a fingerprint image is acquired using a fingerprint sensor" and paragraph [0051] "When a user needs to unlock, wake up, or make mobile payments on an electronic device, the user can touch the area where the fingerprint sensor is located on the electronic device with their finger. The fingerprint sensor can then capture the user's fingerprint image. The fingerprint image refers to an image containing the user's finger fingerprint");
According to the gray value of the pixel block in the fingerprint part of the collected fingerprint image (Zhu paragraph [0050] "Step 201: Divide the acquired fingerprint image into multiple fingerprint image blocks"), the first gray threshold and the second gray threshold corresponding to the current fingerprint image are obtained. Wherein, the first gray threshold is greater than the second gray threshold (Zhu paragraph [0071] "pixels with gray values greater than or equal to the local segmentation threshold in the fingerprint block can be identified as fingerprint ridges in the fingerprint block; pixels with gray values less than the local segmentation threshold in the fingerprint block can be identified as areas other than fingerprint ridges in the fingerprint block (which may include fingerprint valleys and/or non-fingerprint areas)");
Using the first gray threshold and the second gray threshold to obtain a plurality of image blocks to be recognized (Teng paragraph [0064] "The analysis unit includes an image processing subunit and a feature point extraction subunit. The image processing subunit performs image preprocessing on the acquired first fingerprint image, and the feature point extraction subunit extracts feature point data from the preprocessed first fingerprint image. The image preprocessing methods include at least one of the following: image quality assessment, image enhancement, fingerprint region detection, fingerprint orientation map and frequency estimation, image binarization (setting the gray value of each pixel in the fingerprint image to 0 or 255), and image thinning"), and combined with the gray value of the image blocks to obtain the comprehensive similarity value of the current fingerprint image (Teng paragraph [0066] "The feature point data of N first fingerprint images are compared with the feature point data of M second fingerprint images pre-stored in the database to obtain the comprehensive similarity of the N first fingerprint images, where M is greater than or equal to N");
When the comprehensive similarity value is not lower than the preset similarity threshold, the fingerprint image of the current user is judged to pass fingerprint verification (Teng paragraph [0110-0111] "S103. Generate recognition result data. The overall similarity is compared with a threshold to generate recognition result data, which is used to indicate whether the fingerprint verification was successful or failed");
According to the gray values of the pixel block of the fingerprint part of the currently collected fingerprint image, the first gray threshold and the second gray threshold corresponding to the current fingerprint image are obtained (Zhu paragraph [0071] "pixels with gray values greater than or equal to the local segmentation threshold in the fingerprint block can be identified as fingerprint ridges in the fingerprint block; pixels with gray values less than the local segmentation threshold in the fingerprint block can be identified as areas other than fingerprint ridges in the fingerprint block (which may include fingerprint valleys and/or non-fingerprint areas)"), including:
Extract the gray value of the pixel block of the fingerprint part of the current fingerprint image; The gray value of the pixel block in the fingerprint part, which is lower than the optimal threshold corresponding to the fingerprint image is extracted as the first gray value data; The gray value of the pixel block in the fingerprint part, which is not lower than the optimal threshold corresponding to the fingerprint image is extracted as the second gray value data (Zhu paragraph [0072] "In a fingerprint block, pixels with gray values greater than or equal to the local segmentation threshold have their gray values changed to 1 after binarization, representing fingerprint ridges in the fingerprint block; while pixels with gray values less than the local segmentation threshold have their gray values changed to O after binarization, representing areas in the fingerprint block other than fingerprint ridges");
However, the cited prior art reference, alone or in combination, does not provide motivation to teach the order combination of all the recited limitations of independent claims 11 and 15. Claims 12-14 and 16-17, dependent on claim 11 and 14, respectively, are therefore allowable.
Reference Cited
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
Yang et al. (CN108596060B - translation from Espacenet) discloses fingerprint recognition using multiple sensors and utilizing grayscale reduction and amplification based on different threshold values to generate a new fingerprint image that is used for verification. This is done to reduce signal-to-noise ratio . However, while multiple different threshold values are used to compare gray values of the image, Yang does not disclose a first and second candidate scale threshold that is calculated used to calculate the first and second gray threshold.
Chen et al. (US 20180005014 A1) discloses fingerprint recognition using a comparison of grayscale value with a template image stored in a database. While this is similar to some limitations of the instant application, Chen does not teach a first and second candidate scale threshold that is calculated used to calculate the first and second gray threshold
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JASPREET KAUR whose telephone number is (571)272-5534. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30 am - 4:00 PST.
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, Amandeep Saini can be reached at (571)272-3382. 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.
/JASPREET KAUR/Examiner, Art Unit 2662
/Siamak Harandi/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2662
Prosecution Insights