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 of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 24 January 2025, 25 February 2025, and 6 June 2025 are being considered by the examiner.
It is noted that the information disclosure statements comprise OA letters from counterpart applications which comprise prior art references not included in the information disclosure statements. Therefore, unless the references have been cited by the examiner on form PTO-892, they have not been considered.
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 (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 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 1, 3-4, 7-11, 13-14, 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 2020/0257884) in view of Russo (US 2007/0014443).
Regarding claim 1, Kim et al. disclose a fake fingerprint recognition device (Figure 11), comprising:
a memory, configured to store at least one command (Figure 11, 1130 is a memory, see paragraph [0016].); and
a processor, configured to read the at least one command (Figure 11, 1110 is a processor, see paragraph [0016].) to execute following steps:
receiving an input fingerprint image (Figure 1A and paragraph [0040], 100 receives input fingerprint image 115.);
calculating a fingerprint index according to the input fingerprint image and a registered fingerprint image in a fingerprint database, wherein the input fingerprint image corresponds to the registered fingerprint image, and the registered fingerprint image is stored in the fingerprint database in advance (Paragraph [0047], the image quality assessor 220 determines an IQA value by using various methods, and paragraph [0048] explains the fake fingerprint determiner 230 generates a feature vector and obtains a calculated confidence value as in Figure 12. This is all done “according to” the input fingerprint image and a registered fingerprint image in a fingerprint database, wherein the input fingerprint image corresponds to the registered fingerprint image, and the registered fingerprint image is stored in the fingerprint database in advance: see paragraphs [0041]-[0043].);
determining whether the fingerprint index is smaller than a predetermined index threshold (Paragraph [0049], see also Figure 6.); and
if the fingerprint index is smaller than the predetermined index threshold, determining that the input fingerprint image is a fake fingerprint image (Paragraph [0049], see also Figure 6.).
Kim et al. fail to teach:
determining whether the fingerprint index is larger than a predetermined index threshold; and
if the fingerprint index is larger than the predetermined index threshold, determining that the input fingerprint image is a fake fingerprint image.
Russo discloses a fake fingerprint recognition device wherein it is determined whether the fingerprint index is larger than or smaller than a predetermined index threshold; and if the fingerprint index is larger than or smaller than the predetermined index threshold, determining that the input fingerprint image is a fake fingerprint image (Paragraph [0046] recites “if the probability that the imaged finger is fake is above a given threshold--a value typically specified by the application software--the user is notified” and then paragraph [0047] recites “While FIG. 2 shows that a stimulus is classified as "fake" if a probability computed from a metric or combination of metrics is "above" a threshold value, those skilled in the art will recognize that probabilities can be generated so that a stimulus is classified as fake if the probability is below a threshold value. As one example, the probability computed from a set of metrics is the value X. Classification logic determines that if X is 0.55 or larger (within the predetermined range [0.55, 1]), then the stimulus is classified as fake. Alternatively, if the probability computed is 1-X (the complement of X), then the stimulus is classified as fake if the calculated probability (1-X) is 0.45 or smaller (within the predetermined range [0,0.45]): generating the complement of the probability merely changes the range of values used to classify the stimulus. The resulting classification is the same.”).
Thus, Kim et al. and Russo each disclose of determining a fake fingerprint. A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the “above a threshold” teachings of Russo could have been substituted for the “below a threshold” teaching of Kim et al. because both result in the determination of a fake fingerprint but just involve using complimentary values where the result is the same. Furthermore, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been able to carry out the substitution. Finally, the substitution achieves the predictable result of providing recognition of a fake fingerprint.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the “above a threshold” teachings of Russo for the “below a threshold” teaching of Kim et al. according to known methods to yield the predictable result of providing recognition of a fake fingerprint.
Regarding claim 3, Kim et al. and Russo disclose the fake fingerprint recognition device of claim 1, wherein the input fingerprint image and the registered fingerprint image correspond to a same fingerprint (Kim et al.: Paragraph [0038].).
Regarding claim 4, Kim et al. and Russo disclose the fake fingerprint recognition device of claim 1, wherein the registered fingerprint image is obtained in advance and stored in the fingerprint database in advance (Kim et al.: Figure 1A, registered fingerprint database 120 and paragraph 0041]), the input fingerprint image is received in real-time (Kim et al.: Figure 1A and paragraph [0040]), and the input fingerprint image and the registered fingerprint image are utilized to execute a real-time calculation to obtain the fingerprint index (Kim et al.: Figure 6).
Regarding claim 7, Kim et al. and Russo disclose the fake fingerprint recognition device of claim 1, wherein the processor is further configured to read the at least one command to execute following steps:
obtaining at least one input fingerprint feature value of the input fingerprint image (Kim et al.: Paragraphs [0006] and [0048]);
determining whether the input fingerprint image matches the registered fingerprint image according to the at least one input fingerprint feature value (Kim et al.: Paragraphs [0008] and [0010]-[0011].); and
if the input fingerprint image matches the registered fingerprint image, calculating the fingerprint index according to the input fingerprint image and the registered fingerprint image (Kim et al.: Paragraph [0007] and Figure 6 and paragraph [0043].).
Regarding claim 8, Kim et al. and Russo disclose the fake fingerprint recognition device of claim 1, wherein the processor is further configured to read the at least one command to execute following steps:
obtaining at least one input fingerprint feature of the input fingerprint image (Kim et al.: Paragraphs [0006] and [0048]);
determining whether the at least one input fingerprint feature of the input fingerprint image matches a registered fingerprint feature of the registered fingerprint image (Kim et al.: Paragraphs [0008] and [0010]-[0011].); and
if the at least one input fingerprint feature of the input fingerprint image matches the registered fingerprint feature of the registered fingerprint image, calculating the fingerprint index according to the input fingerprint image and the registered fingerprint image (Kim et al.: Paragraph [0007] and Figure 6 and paragraph [0043].).
Regarding claim 9, Kim et al. and Russo disclose the fake fingerprint recognition device of claim 1, wherein the processor is further configured to read the at least one command to execute following steps:
determining whether the input fingerprint image after rotation and translation overlaps with the registered fingerprint image (Kim et al.: Figure 1B and paragraph [0042]); and
if the input fingerprint image after the rotation and translation overlaps with the registered fingerprint image, calculating the fingerprint index according to the input fingerprint image and the registered fingerprint image (See paragraphs [0041]-[0043] of Kim et al., where, as explained in claim 1, the index is calculated after the input and registered fingerprint match and thus if the input fingerprint image after the rotation and translation overlaps with the registered fingerprint image, the fingerprint index according to the input fingerprint image and the registered fingerprint image is calculated.).
Regarding claim 10, Kim et al. and Russo disclose the fake fingerprint recognition device of claim 1, wherein the processor is further configured to read the at least one command to execute following steps:
if the fingerprint index in not larger than the predetermined index threshold, determining that the input fingerprint image is a real fingerprint image (Kim et al.: Paragraph [0049], clearly the fingerprint is real when the values are opposite the threshold value of when a fake fingerprint is determined. In the combination, the real fingerprint will be determined when the fingerprint index in not larger than the predetermined index threshold since a fake fingerprint is determined when the fingerprint index is greater than the predetermined index threshold.).
Regarding claim 11, this claim is rejected under the same rationale as claim 1.
Regarding claim 13, this claim is rejected under the same rationale as claim 3.
Regarding claim 14, this claim is rejected under the same rationale as claim 4.
Regarding claim 17, this claim is rejected under the same rationale as claim 7.
Regarding claim 18, this claim is rejected under the same rationale as claim 8.
Regarding claim 19, this claim is rejected under the same rationale as claim 9.
Regarding claim 20, this claim is rejected under the same rationale as claim 10.
Claims 2 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 2020/0257884) in view of Russo (US 2007/0014443) and further in view of Hu et al. (CN 117011896 A)*.
*For translation purposes, the examiner will refer to the US equivalent document US 2025/0292625
Regarding claim 2, Kim et al. and Russo disclose the fake fingerprint recognition device of claim 1.
Kim et al. and Russo fail to teach wherein the fingerprint index comprises an image contrast index, and the predetermined index threshold comprises a predetermined contrast index threshold, wherein the processor is further configured to read the at least one command to execute following steps:
calculating the image contrast index according to the input fingerprint image and the registered fingerprint image;
determining whether the image contrast index is larger than the predetermined contrast index threshold; and
if the image contrast index is larger than the predetermined contrast index threshold, determining that the input fingerprint image is the fake fingerprint image, and outputting a fake fingerprint warning signal.
Hu et al. disclose wherein a fingerprint index comprises an image contrast index, and the predetermined index threshold comprises a predetermined contrast index threshold (Paragraph [0124], first anti-counterfeiting index value is determined according to contrast and thus is a “image contrast index” and paragraph [0125], fingerprint contrast threshold value.), wherein the processor is further configured to read the at least one command to execute following steps:
calculating the image contrast index according to the input fingerprint image and the registered fingerprint image (Paragraphs [0124] and [0132].);
determining whether the image contrast index is larger than the predetermined contrast index threshold (Paragraph [0125] and [0132].); and
if the image contrast index is larger than the predetermined contrast index threshold, determining that the input fingerprint image is the fake fingerprint image, and outputting a fake fingerprint warning signal (Paragraph [0131], “…when the fingerprint to be identified exceeds the corresponding threshold value ranges, the fingerprint to be identified may be identified to be a forged fingerprint.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to “one of ordinary skill” in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the contrast teachings of Hu et al. in the fake fingerprint recognition device taught by the combination of Kim et al. and Russo. The motivation to combine would have been in order to optimize the anti-counterfeiting performance (See paragraph [0130] of Hu et al.).
Regarding claim 12, this claim is rejected under the same rationale as claim 2.
Claims 5-6 and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 2020/0257884) in view of Russo (US 2007/0014443) and further in view of Chiang et al. (US 2016/0147825).
Regarding claim 5, Kim et al. and Russo disclose the fake fingerprint recognition device of claim 1, wherein a real fingerprint is determined if the fingerprint index is not larger than the predetermined index threshold (See claims 1 and 10 above.), and also disclose of a fingerprint feature value (Kim et al.: Paragraphs [0006] and [0048]).
Kim et al. and Russo fail to teach wherein the processor is further configured to read the at least one command to execute following steps:
if the fingerprint index is not larger than the predetermined index threshold, determining whether a fingerprint feature value of the input fingerprint image is larger than a predetermined feature value threshold; and
if the fingerprint feature value of the input fingerprint image is larger than the predetermined feature value threshold, utilizing the input fingerprint image to update the registered fingerprint image.
Chiang et al. disclose determining whether a fingerprint feature value of the input fingerprint image is larger than a predetermined feature value threshold (Figure 3A, S350 and paragraph [0026].); and
if the fingerprint feature value of the input fingerprint image is larger than the predetermined feature value threshold, utilizing the input fingerprint image to update the registered fingerprint image (Figure 3A, yes at S350 then in Figure 3B S360-S370: the registered fingerprint is replaced.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to “one of ordinary skill” in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the replacement/updating teachings of Chiang et al. in the fake fingerprint recognition device taught by the combination of Kim et al. and Russo. The motivation to combine would have been in order to increase the success rate of fingerprint recognition (See paragraph [0028] of Chiang et al.).
Regarding claim 6, Kim et al. and Russo disclose the fake fingerprint recognition device of claim 1.
Kim et al. and Russo fail to teach wherein the processor is further configured to read the at least one command to execute following steps:
if the fingerprint index is not larger than the predetermined index threshold, determining whether a fingerprint effective area ratio of the input fingerprint image is larger than a predetermined area ratio threshold, or determining whether a fingerprint definition of the input fingerprint image is larger than a predetermined definition threshold (Figure 3A, S350 and paragraph [0026], the second threshold is a “predetermined definition threshold”.); and
if the fingerprint effective area ratio of the input fingerprint image is larger than the predetermined area ratio threshold or the fingerprint definition of the input fingerprint image is larger than the predetermined definition threshold, utilizing the input fingerprint image to update the registered fingerprint image (Figure 3A, yes at S350 then in Figure 3B S360-S370: the registered fingerprint is replaced, i.e. updated.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to “one of ordinary skill” in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the replacement/updating teachings of Chiang et al. in the fake fingerprint recognition device taught by the combination of Kim et al. and Russo. The motivation to combine would have been in order to increase the success rate of fingerprint recognition (See paragraph [0028] of Chiang et al.).
Regarding claim 15, this claim is rejected under the same rationale as claim 5.
Regarding claim 16, this claim is rejected under the same rationale as claim 6.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEPHEN G SHERMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-2941. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:00am - 4pm ET.
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, AMR AWAD can be reached at (571)272-7764. 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.
/STEPHEN G SHERMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2621
28 January 2026