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
Receipt is acknowledged that application is a National Stage application of PCT/JP2023/028033 dated 07/31/2023. Receipt is acknowledged that application claims priority to foreign application with application number JP2022-121868 dated 07/29/2022. Copies of certified papers required by 37 CFR 1.55 have been received. Priority is acknowledged under 35 USC 119(e) and 37 CFR 1.78. Claims 1-11 have been afforded the benefit of filing date 07/29/2022.
Claim Objections
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities: “detects a fixed object capable of estimating a distance between the authentication image acquisition device and the target person from the background of the second captured image” should read “detects a fixed object, capable of estimating a distance between the authentication image acquisition device and the target person, from the background of the second captured image….” Appropriate correction is 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 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:
“first imaging unit” in claims 1, 2, and 6
“generation unit” in claims 1, 3, 6, 7, and 9
“acquisition unit” in claims 1-9
“display unit” in claim 1
“second imaging unit” in claims 3 and 6-8
“input unit” in claim 4
“measurement unit” in claim 9
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 § 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.
Claim 8 is 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 8 recites “a fixed object capable of estimating a distance…” which renders the claims indefinite. It is unclear from the claim language how the object is capable of estimating a distance. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. For examination purposes, the fixed object is interpreted to be an object in the imaged scene that is used as a marker to estimate the distance between the camera and imaged person (consistent with the description provided in para 109 of the specification).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claims do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because claim 11 is directed to a signal per se.
Claim 11 recites “A computer readable storage medium on which an authentication image acquisition program for causing an authentication image acquisition device to execute processing is stored…” Thus, a computer readable storage medium is claimed. The broadest reasonable interpretation of machine-readable media can encompass non-statutory transitory forms of signal transmission, such as a propagating electrical or electromagnetic signal per se (MPEP 2106.03). The specification as filed does not limit the definition of “computer readable storage medium” to non-transitory mediums.
Since a transitory signal, while physical and real, does not possess concrete structure that would qualify as a device or part under the definition of a machine, is not a tangible article or commodity under the definition of a manufacture (even though it is man-made and physical in that it exists in the real world and has tangible causes and effects), and is not composed of matter such that it would qualify as a composition of matter (MPEP 2106.03); therefore, claim 11 is non-statutory under 35 U.S.C. §101.
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.
Claims 1, 5-7, and 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kikuchi et al. (JP Patent No. 2020-091876 A), hereinafter Kikuchi, in view of Kim et al. (U.S. Patent No. 2014/0240544 A1), hereinafter Kim.
Regarding claim 1, Kikuchi teaches an authentication image acquisition device (Kikuchi, information processing system 10, pg. 8-9, para 11; authentication – identity verification process, see pg. 20, para 27, and the identity verification result, pg. 8-9, para 11-12) comprising:
a first imaging unit that captures an image of a target person to be authenticated (Kikuchi, pg. 14, para 18: “On the other hand, when capturing a user's face image, as described later, the front-side imaging device 205 is used to capture the face image”);
a generation unit that generates a guide image in which an imaging guide for guiding the target person to an imaging position is superimposed on a first captured image obtained by the first imaging unit (Kikuchi, face position guide in FIG. 12, pg. 46, para 60: “On the face image capture screen, the image of the user's face is displayed along with the guide 1201. Therefore, the face position guide 1201 indicates the position where the user's face should be placed in the captured image”);
an acquisition unit that acquires information on the target person based on the first captured image (Kikuchi, features of the face image used to perform the identity verification, pg. 9, para 12: “The information processing server 110 sets the identity verification result based on the image received from the smartphone 100 (through operations performed by an operator or other person performing identity verification).”); and
a display unit that displays the guide image and superimposes the imaging guide on the first captured image (Kikuchi, face position guide in the face image capture screen, see pg. 46, para 60, cited above).
PNG
media_image1.png
405
631
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Kikuchi fails to explicitly teach wherein the generation unit generates an imaging guide having a size based on the information on the target person (emphasis added); however, Kim teaches an image capturing method for generating imaging guides for a target person (Kim, abstract: “A method for photographing an image in a device having a camera according to the present invention includes displaying a preview image, identifying a face size of a person included in the preview image, displaying a guide in the preview image”). Kim further teaches:
an acquisition unit that acquires information on the target person based on the first captured image (Kim, the information on the target person is their face size, para 38: “For the guide settings, the control unit 100 identifies an image output by the camera 120 at step 217. The image recognition is performed by identifying faces of persons, landscape, and/or a device state of the image, and the number of persons and face sizes are identified when the face is identified. Subsequently, the control unit 100 determines a photographing guide according to the identified number of persons and face sizes in step 219”; information can also include sex and age, see para 34); and
a display unit that displays the guide image (Kim, para 31: “The display unit 130 displays an image photographed under the control of the control unit 100. The display unit 130 can display a guide by overlaying the guide on a preview image in a guide-photographing mode under the control of the control unit 100”), wherein the generation unit generates an imaging guide having a size based on the information on the target person and superimposes the imaging guide on the first captured image (Kim, guide generated based on face size is superimposed in FIGS. 6A-6D; para 58: “FIGS. 6A to 6D illustrate examples of determining a guide according to the face size of 1 person in an image having a screen ratio of 16:9, and the guide is located at the right side of the screen. The guide may be determined to be located in the center or at the left side, if necessary.”).
PNG
media_image2.png
385
449
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Kim teaches a method that provides a user with optimal positioning of a target person based on information pertaining to the target person. While Kikuchi teaches the use of an imaging guide, it is not generated based on information pertaining to the target person. Utilizing a “one size fits all” guide may result in sub-optimal image results. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have combined the above teachings of Kim with the authentication image acquisition device of Kikuchi in order to improve the positioning of the target person by utilizing their face size or other personal information (Kim, para 8: “The camera device, according to an embodiment of the present invention provides a practical and useful photographing guide by analyzing a displayed image and providing a user with the optimal guide and information on whether a subject is correctly positioned according to the provided guide”).
Regarding claim 5 (dependent on claim 1), Kikuchi in view of Kim teaches wherein the acquisition unit detects a face or a hand of the target person from a captured image of the target person and acquires attribute information on the target person based on the detected face or hand of the target person (Kim, detecting face and acquired face size of the imaged person in the first captured image, see para 38).
Regarding claim 6 (dependent on claim 1), Kikuchi in view of Kim teaches a second imaging unit that captures an image of the target person, which is different from the first imaging unit (Kikuchi, smartphone has two imaging units – a front and back camera, pg. 13-14, para 18: “For example, in the identity document photography process and the verification process of the fact of photography, which will be described later, an image is captured using the rear-facing imaging device 205. On the other hand, when capturing a user's face image, as described later, the front-side imaging device 205 is used to capture the face image;” see also the explanation on obviousness below), wherein the acquisition unit acquires attribute information on the target person based on a captured image of the target person obtained by the second imaging unit, and the generation unit generates an imaging guide having a size based on the attribute information on the target person (The face size, sex, and age information, taught in para 34 of Kim, is attribute information. As described in the claim 1 rejection, this information is derived from image data and used to generate an imaging guide having a size based on this information.).
In Kikuchi’s disclosure, the front and rear imaging devices are described as imaging a user’s face and an identity document, respectively. However, as claimed here, both the first imaging unit (introduced in claim 1 and mapped to the front imaging device) and second imaging unit (mapped to the rear imaging device in this claim) capture images of the target person. It is well known that both front and rear cameras of a smartphone (the main embodiment described in Kikuchi) can be utilized to capture an image of a person. Altering which cameras capture which type of image (person and/or document) is merely a design choice. Accordingly, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have altered which camera of Kikuchi’s device (front/rear) is utilized to capture specific images (target person or ID card), since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art (see Japikse, 86 USPQ 70 (MPEP 2144.04 (VI-C))).
Regarding claim 7 (dependent on claim 1), Kikuchi in view of Kim teaches a second imaging unit that captures an image of the target person and a background (Kikuchi, smartphone has two imaging units – a front and back camera, pg. 13-14, para 18: “For example, in the identity document photography process and the verification process of the fact of photography, which will be described later, an image is captured using the rear-facing imaging device 205. On the other hand, when capturing a user's face image, as described later, the front-side imaging device 205 is used to capture the face image;” an image of the person includes the background surrounding them – see in FIG. 12 how the person does not take up the entire screen; see also the explanation on obviousness below). Additionally, Kim is relied upon to teach the determination of a face size, as described in the claim 1 rejection, and thus, teaches: wherein the acquisition unit estimates a size of a face or a hand of the target person based on a position and a size of the target person with respect to a background of a second captured image obtained by the second imaging unit (Kim, para 48: “Subsequently, the control unit 100 identifies a background of preview image in step 419, and identifies a device state (inclination and rotation) by receiving an output of the sensor 150 in step 421. The numbers of identified faces and persons, background, and/or device state are used as parameters in determining a guide image”; see also para 49), and acquire the estimated size of the face or the hand, and the generation unit generates an imaging guide having a size based on the size of the face or the hand (Kim, para 38: “The image recognition is performed by identifying faces of persons, landscape, and/or a device state of the image, and the number of persons and face sizes are identified when the face is identified. Subsequently, the control unit 100 determines a photographing guide according to the identified number of persons and face sizes in step 219.”).
In Kikuchi’s disclosure, the front and rear imaging devices are described as imaging a user’s face and an identity document, respectively. However, as claimed here, both the first imaging unit (introduced in claim 1 and mapped to the front imaging device) and second imaging unit (mapped to the rear imaging device in this claim) capture images of the target person. It is well known that both front and rear cameras of a smartphone (the main embodiment described in Kikuchi) can be utilized to take an image of a person. Altering which cameras capture which type of image (person and/or document) is merely a design choice. Accordingly, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have altered which camera of Kikuchi’s device (front/rear) is utilized to capture specific images (target person or ID card), since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art (see Japikse, 86 USPQ 70 (MPEP 2144.04 (VI-C))).
Regarding claim 10, all claim limitations are met and rendered obvious by Kikuchi in view of Kim because the authentication image acquisition method steps of claim 10 are the same as those performed by the authentication image acquisition device in claim 1.
Regarding claim 11, Kikuchi teaches a computer readable storage medium on which an authentication image acquisition program for causing an authentication image acquisition device to execute processing is stored (Kikuchi, pg. 15, para 20: “The recording unit 207 includes, for example, a non-volatile memory such as a semiconductor memory, and stores images taken and acquired for identity verification, as well as programs and settings executed by the control unit 202”), the authentication image acquisition device including a computer capable of acquiring a captured image obtained by capturing an image of a target person to be authenticated (Kikuchi, pg. 7, para 10: “Furthermore, as an example of an information processing device, we will explain an example using a smartphone capable of taking pictures. However, this embodiment is applicable not only to smartphones but also to other devices capable of taking images”). All further claim limitations are met and rendered obvious by Kikuchi in view of Kim because the processing steps of claim 11 are the same as those performed by the authentication image acquisition device in claim 1.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kikuchi in view of Kim, in further view of Kaede (JP Patent No. 2020-194296 A – cited in IDS 03/24/2025).
Regarding claim 2 (dependent on claim 1), Kikuchi in view of Kim teaches wherein the first imaging unit captures an image of the target person (Kikuchi, front-side imaging device, see claim 1 rejection) and a rear imaging device captures an identification card of the target person (Kikuchi, rear camera capturing ID document, pg. 13-14, para 18: “For example, in the identity document photography process and the verification process of the fact of photography, which will be described later, an image is captured using the rear-facing imaging device 205;” see also para 29-30), and the acquisition unit acquires attribute information on the target person based on a captured image obtained by capturing an image of the identification card (Kikuchi, features of the document image used to perform the identity verification, pg. 8-9, para 11-12: “The image of the identification document and the facial image captured by the smartphone 100 are transmitted to the information processing server 110…The information processing server 110 sets the identity verification result based on the image received from the smartphone 100 (through operations performed by an operator or other person performing identity verification).”).
However, Kikuchi fails to explicitly teach wherein the first imaging unit captures images of both the target person and identification card. Kaede similarly teaches an authentication image acquisition device (Kaede, pg. 84, para 140: “Furthermore, the control unit 103 compares the images of the person 2 and object 3 captured by the camera 4 with personal information to authenticate the person 2.”), wherein a first imaging unit captures an image of the target person and an identification card of the target person (Kaede, pg. 83, para 138: “As shown in Figure 13, the display unit 104 included in the information processing device 1 displays the person 2, the object 3, a predetermined area 51 where the person 2 is placed, and a predetermined area 52 where the object 3 is placed, all of which are being photographed by the shooting device 4;” pg. 80, para 133: “In this embodiment, as an example, object 3 is a card (for example, a driver's license) equipped with an IC chip 32 and bearing text such as a name and address, as well as an image of a person on its surface”), and an acquisition unit acquires attribute information on the target person based on a captured image obtained by capturing an image of the identification card (Kaede, pg. 84-85, para 141: “As a matching method, the control unit 103 analyzes the image data of the object 3 to obtain the face image of person 2 and the image and text of person 2 attached to the surface of object 3.”).
PNG
media_image3.png
346
372
media_image3.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have combined the captured image, taught by Kaede, with the device of Kikuchi in view of Kim in order to increase the efficiency of the system. In Kikuchi’s disclosed embodiment, a user is required to take separate images of the target person and identification card (using both the front and rear cameras); however, Kaede teaches a method where the matching authentication can be performed using only one image of both objects (person and card). This improves the ease of use of the system for a user/operator.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kikuchi in view of Kim, in further view of Liu et al. (CN Patent No. 109697412 A), hereinafter Liu.
Regarding claim 3 (dependent on claim 1), Kikuchi in view of Kim teaches further comprising: a second imaging unit that captures an image of an identification card of the target person (Kikuchi, rear-facing camera, pg. 13-14, para 18: “For example, in the identity document photography process and the verification process of the fact of photography, which will be described later, an image is captured using the rear-facing imaging device 205;” rear camera captures the identity document, see also para 29-30), wherein the acquisition unit acquires attribute information on the target person based on a second captured image obtained by the second imaging unit (Kikuchi, features of the document image used to perform the identity verification, pg. 8-9, para 11-12: “The image of the identification document and the facial image captured by the smartphone 100 are transmitted to the information processing server 110…The information processing server 110 sets the identity verification result based on the image received from the smartphone 100 (through operations performed by an operator or other person performing identity verification).”), but fails to explicitly teach the generation unit generates an imaging guide having a size based on the attribute information on the target person (Kim teaches generating the imaging guide based on information acquired from the first captured image in the claim 1 rejection.).
Accordingly, Kikuchi in view of Kim fails to explicitly teach wherein the guide is generated based on the attribute information on the target person; however, Liu teaches a similar method for capturing an image of an identification card where attribute information on the target person based on the image of the identification card is acquired (Liu, a face image/face region on the ID card, see next citation) and an imaging guide is generated having a size based on the attribute information on the target person (Liu, small frame to ensure the face region is within the guide, pg. 21, para 43: “Detecting the face image on an ID card is to determine the face region on the ID card. The goal of obtaining the face region is to ensure that the face region is within a small frame so that a complete face image can be captured. The ID card photo frame can guide the user to align the ID card with the edge of the shooting frame to obtain a complete ID card image”). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have combined the above teachings of Liu with the device of Kikuchi in view of Kim in order to ensure that the face of the ID card is properly imaged (see above citations from Liu).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kikuchi in view of Kim, in further view of Tussy et al. (U.S. Patent No. 2020/0042685 A1), hereinafter Tussy.
Regarding claim 4 (dependent on claim 1), Kikuchi in view of Kim fails to explicitly teach further comprising: an input unit that receives an input operation performed by the target person regarding attribute information on the target person, wherein the acquisition unit acquires the attribute information on the target person input to the input unit. However, Tussy similarly teaches an authentication image acquisition device (Tussy, para 7: “The system may then authenticate a user by the user providing at least one authentication image via the camera of the mobile device while the user moves the mobile device to different positions relative to the user's head. The authentication images are processed for face detection and facial biometric information”), comprising: an input unit that receives an input operation performed by the target person regarding attribute information on the target person, wherein the acquisition unit acquires the attribute information on the target person input to the input unit (Tussy, para 170: “the user may manually enter one or more of their gender, an approximate age, and an ethnicity, or this information may be taken or obtained from existing records which are known to be accurate. The authentication system may then further store a user's estimated gender, age, and ethnicity as enrollment credentials or user data”).
It is foreseeable that an operator of the system may want to authenticate a target person based on attribute information that is not included in an identification card. Additionally, there may be cases where an identification card is damaged in certain areas and the device cannot properly extract certain information. Accordingly, It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have combined the manual input, taught by Tussy, with the device of Kikuchi in view of Kim in order to make available a manual path to enter information about the target person for subsequent authentication (Tussy, para 170: “Thus, when the user later attempts to authenticate with the system, the system will compare derived gender, age, and ethnicity obtained from authentication images (using biometric analysis to determine such data or estimates thereof based on processing) with the stored gender, age, and ethnicity to determine whether to authenticate the user”).
Claims 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kikuchi in view of Kim, in further view of Znamenskiy et al. (U.S. Patent No. 2015/0262422 A1), hereinafter Znamenskiy.
Regarding claim 8 (dependent on claim 7), Kikuchi in view of Kim teaches acquiring the size of the face of the target person based on image data (see Kim teachings in claim 1 rejection), but fails to explicitly teach wherein the acquisition unit detects a fixed object capable of estimating a distance between the authentication image acquisition device and the target person from the background of the second captured image obtained by the second imaging unit, and acquires the size of the face or the hand of the target person based on the distance based on the detected fixed object and a position and a size of the target person shown in the second captured image.
However, Znamenskiy teaches a face size measuring system (Znamenskiy, para 20: “the collection of data of a face of the subject is a collection of anthropometric data of a face of a subject”) where the acquisition unit detects a fixed object (Znamenskiy, a marker, see next citation and para 107: “A fiducial marker is an object used in the field of view of an imaging system which appears in the image produced, for use as a point of reference or a measure”) capable of estimating a distance between the authentication image acquisition device and the target person from the background of the second captured image obtained by the second imaging unit (Znamenskiy, para 88: “Due to the known dimensions and pattern of the respective at least one marking, a determination of a distance and orientation of the face in the image, or in other words of the camera that took the image of the face, can be realized such that an easier reconstruction of the 3D data is possible based on several 2D images”), and acquires the size of the face or the hand of the target person based on the distance based on the detected fixed object and a position and a size of the target person shown in the second captured image (Znamenskiy, determines face size measurements based on the scaled image data, para 93: “scaling the image dimensions in the image data to subject dimensions based on the ratio of the at least one reference distance in the image data to a corresponding known subject reference distance based on the at least one respective marking”). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have combined the above measurement teachings, as taught by Znamenskiy, with the device of Kikuchi in view of Kim in order to capture accurate face size measurements (Znamenskiy, para 44: “The computing device is able to beneficially carry out the steps for providing the subject dimensional data of the subject's face as mentioned before via the processing unit”).
Regarding claim 9 (dependent on claim 1), Kikuchi in view of Kim teaches acquiring the size of the face of the target person based on image data and the generation unit generates an imaging guide having a size based on the size of the face (see Kim teachings in claim 1 rejection), but fails to explicitly teach further comprising: a measurement unit that measures a distance between the authentication image acquisition device and the target person, wherein the acquisition unit acquires a size of a face or a hand of the target person based on the distance measured by the measurement unit and a captured image of the target person.
However, Znamenskiy teaches a face size measuring system (Znamenskiy, para 20: “the collection of data of a face of the subject is a collection of anthropometric data of a face of a subject”), including a measurement unit that measures a distance between the authentication image acquisition device and the target person (Znamenskiy, para 88: “Due to the known dimensions and pattern of the respective at least one marking, a determination of a distance and orientation of the face in the image, or in other words of the camera that took the image of the face, can be realized such that an easier reconstruction of the 3D data is possible based on several 2D images”), and acquires a size of a face or a hand of the target person based on the distance measured by the measurement unit and a captured image of the target person (Znamenskiy, determines face size measurements based on the scaled image data, para 93: “scaling the image dimensions in the image data to subject dimensions based on the ratio of the at least one reference distance in the image data to a corresponding known subject reference distance based on the at least one respective marking”). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have combined the above measurement teachings, as taught by Znamenskiy, with the device of Kikuchi in view of Kim in order to capture accurate face size measurements (Znamenskiy, para 44: “The computing device is able to beneficially carry out the steps for providing the subject dimensional data of the subject's face as mentioned before via the processing unit”).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
U.S. Patent No. 2015/0154448 A1 (second guide frame is sized based on information of the target subject, see para 99)
KR Patent No. 101751175 B1 (Biometric Information Registration Method and System using the On-line ID Card Verification, Face Authentication and Voice Authentication)
U.S. Patent No. 2010/0322484 A1
U.S. Patent No. 2008/0226136 A1
U.S. Patent No. 2018/0247039 A1
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EMMA E DRYDEN whose telephone number is (571)272-1179. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-4 EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, ANDREW BEE can be reached at (571) 270-5183. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/EMMA E DRYDEN/Examiner, Art Unit 2677
/ANDREW W BEE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2677
Prosecution Insights