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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 15 April 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On pages 8-13 of the response the applicant argues amended claim 1, which has incorporated the language of previous claim 6. Specifically, the applicant argues the Chiang reference by stating on pages 11-12 that the “comparison score” disclosed in Chiang, used to correspond to the claimed “fingerprint definition of the input fingerprint image”, represents a relationship between two fingerprint datasets, namely a comparison between the verified verifying fingerprint dataset and the registered fingerprint dataset. The applicant then concludes that the “fingerprint definition of the input fingerprint image” recited in original claim 6 is not a relationship between different fingerprints, but rather a characteristic of a single fingerprint image. The office respectfully disagrees.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., that the claimed “fingerprint definition of the input fingerprint image” is a characteristic of a single fingerprint image) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). The claims are in comprising format and the limitation merely recites “fingerprint definition of the input fingerprint image.” There is nothing precluding that the fingerprint definition of the input finger image is a comparison/relationship between different fingerprints since “a characteristic of a single fingerprint image” is not recited in the claims.
The applicant’s further arguments related to the “fingerprint effective area ratio” on page 12 limitations are not considered/are moot since the claims recite “or” and the limitation reciting “fingerprint effective area ratio” was not chosen.
Therefore, the rejection is maintained.
The applicant argues the remaining claims on page 13 by merely reciting that they are allowable with respect to the arguments presented for claim 1. Thus, since the rejection of claim 1 is maintained as explained above, so are the rejections of the remaining claims.
The examiner further notes that the limitations in claim 1, for example, and throughout the claims, all recite a conditional “if” statement. 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 be 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.
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) and further in view of Chiang et al. (US 2016/0147825).
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.
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; 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.
Chiang et al. disclose:
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 3, Kim et al., Russo and Chiang et al. 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., Russo and Chiang et al. 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., Russo and Chiang et al. 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., Russo and Chiang et al. 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., Russo and Chiang et al. 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., Russo and Chiang et al. 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 Chiang et al. (US 2016/0147825) and 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., Russo and Chiang et al. disclose the fake fingerprint recognition device of claim 1.
Kim et al., Russo and Chiang et al. 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., Russo and Chiang et al.. 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
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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
5 May 2026
Prosecution Insights