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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 27 July 2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 27 July 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On pages 8-12 the applicant argues the amendment to independent claim 1 with regards to the conditional “if” statement regarding the fingerprint index being not larger than the predetermined index threshold. As explained previously, starting on the bottom of page 3, of the Final Rejection dated 7 May 2026, the limitations in claim 1, for example, and throughout the claims, all recite conditional “if” statements. Thus, in claim 1, the claim only requires one of the following conditional “if” statements to be true: “if the fingerprint index is larger than the predetermined index threshold…” or “if the fingerprint index is not larger than the predetermined index threshold.” Since the fingerprint image for an input fingerprint image can only be larger than or not larger than, only one of these actually needs to occur within the claim. As such, “if the fingerprint index is larger than the predetermined index threshold” then the fingerprint index would not be “not larger than” as in the second conditional “if” and thus all following limitations do not need to even occur for the references to teach the claims. Thus, the Chiang et al. reference is being removed from the rejection and the last two “if” statement limitations are considered not to occur within the claim since the combination of Kim et al. and Russo disclose the first conditional if. Thus, applicant’s arguments with respect to the amendment and the claimed “fingerprint definition” are moot. See MPEP 2143.03:
As a general matter, the grammar and ordinary meaning of terms as understood by one having ordinary skill in the art used in a claim will dictate whether, and to what extent, the language limits the claim scope. Language that suggests or makes a feature or step optional but does not require that feature or step does not limit the scope of a claim under the broadest reasonable claim interpretation. In addition, when a claim requires selection of an element from a list of alternatives, the prior art teaches the element if one of the alternatives is taught by the prior art. See, e.g., Fresenius USA, Inc. v. Baxter Int’l, Inc., 582 F.3d 1288, 1298, 92 USPQ2d 1163, 1171 (Fed. Cir. 2009).
Thus, while the examiner agrees with the Applicant’s arguments with respect to the Chiang et al. reference, the conditional “if” language makes it such that the argued feature is not required by the claim.
The examiner suggests amending the claims to remove the recitations of “if” and change them to “when” such that the claims recite, for example, “when the fingerprint index is larger than the predetermined index threshold…” and “when the fingerprint index is not larger than the predetermined index threshold…” and “when the fingerprint effective area ratio of the input fingerprint image is larger than…”
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.
Thus, since the combination of Kim et al. and Russo disclose of the fingerprint index being larger than the predetermined index threshold, then the further conditional if statements are not required by the claim since the fingerprint index isn’t “not larger than”:
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:
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.
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
11 August 2026
Prosecution Insights