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
Response to applicant argues on pages 8-10 Taniguchi fails to disclose “… second determination unit configured to determine whether the eyeball image captured by the imaging unit satisfies a second condition different from the first condition…” [See applicant's argument: pages 8-10]; while the applicant points are understood the examiner respectfully disagrees. Taniguchi discloses face information on the target person is registered and a case where face authentication of the target person is successful, which is first condition; and an iris information registration unit that registers iris information collected from the target person, which is second condition, in association with identification information capable of identifying the target person and the registered face information on the target person, in a case where the target person code is inputted by the target person when registering the iris information on the target person [See Paragraphs 166-175 and Figs.8-9].
Regarding dependent claims, in response to applicant's arguments, the examiner
recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the
teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching,
suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the
knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See in re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071,5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR international Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, Taniguchi in combination with Hashimoto meet all rejected limitations of the instant application.
Applicant is reminded that 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).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC §102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless -
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or applications the case maybe, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-6, 8-9, 14 and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Taniguchi et al. (US 2025/0291888) (Keiichiro Taniguchi).
Regarding Claim 1, Taniguchi discloses an imaging apparatus comprising: an imaging unit configured to capture an eyeball image of a user of the imaging apparatus [See abstract and Paragraphs 10-11]; a first determination unit configured to determine whether the eyeball image captured by the imaging unit satisfies a first condition [See Paragraphs 166-175 and Figs.8-9]; a second determination unit configured to determine whether the eyeball image captured by the imaging unit satisfies a second condition different from the first condition [See Paragraphs 166-175 and Figs. 8-9]; a first identification unit configured to execute first identification processing for identifying a user of the imaging apparatus based on a first eyeball image determined to satisfy the first condition by the first determination unit [See Paragraphs 172-215 and Figs. 9-14 e.g. Degree of opining eyes ]; a second identification unit configured to execute second identification processing for identifying the user of the imaging apparatus based on a second eyeball image determined to satisfy the second condition by the second determination unit [See Paragraphs 172-197 and Figs. 9-14 e.g. position /direction rotation]; and a control unit configured to perform control to record information regarding the user identified by the first identification processing and the second identification processing and the eyeball image captured by the imaging apparatus in a memory in association with each other [See Paragraphs 199-229].
Regarding Claim 2, Taniguchi discloses wherein the memory is built in the imaging apparatus or physically detachably connected to the imaging apparatus [See Paragraphs 68-77 and Figs. 3 and 5].
Regarding Claim 3, Taniguchi discloses wherein the imaging apparatus is connected with a server including the memory via a wired and/or wireless communication path, and wherein the control unit is configured to transmit a signal to the server to record the captured image and the information regarding the user in the memory in association with each other [See Paragraphs 83-84].
Regarding Claim 4, Taniguchi discloses wherein, in a case where identification of the user is successful in either the first identification processing or the second identification processing, the control unit is configured to perform control to record the information regarding the user in the memory [See abstract and Paragraphs 92-103].
Regarding Claim 5, Taniguchi discloses wherein, in a case where identification of the user is successful in both the first identification processing and the second identification processing, the control unit is configured to perform control to record the information regarding the user in the memory [See Paragraphs Abstract and Paragraphs 92-103].
Regarding Claim 6, Taniguchi discloses wherein the control unit selects whether to execute the first identification processing or the second identification processing [See Paragraphs 162-166].
Regarding Claim 8, Taniguchi discloses wherein, during execution of at least one of determination by the first and second determination units, the control unit is configured to perform control to display, on a viewfinder display device, a message indicating an instruction to move a line of sight [See Paragraphs 89-100 and 254-255].
Regarding Claim 9, Taniguchi discloses a registration unit configured to register the first and second eyeball images [See abstract and Paragraphs 100,106, and 135-153].
Regarding Claim 14, Taniguchi discloses wherein the first and second conditions are each a condition that a line-of-sight direction in the eyeball image captured by the imaging unit is a predetermined direction, and wherein the predetermined direction respectively varies between the first and second conditions [See Paragraphs 175-174 and 345].
Regarding Claim 17, the limitations claimed are substantially similar to claim 1 above, therefore the ground for rejecting claim l also applies here.
Regarding Claim 18, the limitations claimed are substantially similar to claim 1 above, therefore the ground for rejecting claim l also applies here.
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 7, 10-12, and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Taniguchi et al. (US 2016/0180743) (Keiichiro Taniguchi) in view of Hashimoto et al. (US 2025/0291888) (Megumi Hashimoto).
Regarding Claim 7, Taniguchi doesn’t explicitly disclose wherein the first identification unit is configured to execute the first identification processing by acquiring the eyeball image captured by the imaging unit and checking the eyeball image captured by the imaging means against the first eyeball image, and wherein the second identification unit is configured to execute the second identification processing by acquiring the eyeball image captured by the imaging unit and checking the eyeball image captured by the imaging means against the second eyeball image
However, Hashimoto discloses wherein the first identification unit is configured to execute the first identification processing by acquiring the eyeball image captured by the imaging unit and checking the eyeball image captured by the imaging means against the first eyeball image, and wherein the second identification unit is configured to execute the second identification processing by acquiring the eyeball image captured by the imaging unit and checking the eyeball image captured by the imaging means against the second eyeball image [See Paragraphs 102-111].
It would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art at time of invention to modify the system disclosed by Taniguchi to add the teachings in Hashimoto as above, to provide a device that improve authentication accuracy of person [See Hashimoto abstract].
Regarding Claim 10, Taniguchi doesn’t explicitly disclose a registration unit configured to register a plurality of first eyeball images and a plurality of second eyeball images, wherein a number of registered first eyeball images and a number of registered second eyeball images are different.
However, Hashimoto discloses a registration unit configured to register a plurality of first eyeball images and a plurality of second eyeball images, wherein a number of registered first eyeball images and a number of registered second eyeball images are different [ [See Paragraphs 123-128 and 131-142].
It would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art at time of invention to modify the system disclosed by Taniguchi to add the teachings in Hashimoto as above, to provide a device that improve authentication accuracy of person [See Hashimoto abstract].
Regarding Claim 11, Taniguchi doesn’t explicitly disclose a registration unit configured to register a plurality of first eyeball images or a plurality of second eyeball images, wherein priority orders are given to images of the plurality of registered images, and wherein the first identification unit or the second identification unit is configured to perform checking against the eyeball image captured by the imaging means in accordance with the priority orders
However, Hashimoto discloses a registration unit configured to register a plurality of first eyeball images or a plurality of second eyeball images, wherein priority orders are given to images of the plurality of registered images, and wherein the first identification unit or the second identification unit is configured to perform checking against the eyeball image captured by the imaging means in accordance with the priority orders [See Paragraphs 102-104, 109-113 and 121-128].
It would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art at time of invention to modify the system disclosed by Taniguchi to add the teachings in Hashimoto as above, to provide a device that improve authentication accuracy of person [See Hashimoto abstract].
Regarding Claim 12, Taniguchi doesn’t explicitly disclose wherein the first condition is a condition that a pupil center position in the eyeball image captured by the imaging unit exists near an image center, and wherein the second condition is a condition that a pupil center position in the eyeball image captured by the imaging unit exists at a position distant from the image center
However, Hashimoto discloses wherein the first condition is a condition that a pupil center position in the eyeball image captured by the imaging unit exists near an image center, and wherein the second condition is a condition that a pupil center position in the eyeball image captured by the imaging unit exists at a position distant from the image center [See Paragraphs 106-108].
It would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art at time of invention to modify the system disclosed by Taniguchi to add the teachings in Hashimoto as above, to provide a device that improve authentication accuracy of person [See Hashimoto abstract].
Regarding Claim 13, Taniguchi doesn’t explicitly disclose an illumination unit configured to emit infrared light to an eyeball, wherein the first and second conditions are each a condition that an infrared light reflection region on a pupil region and an iris region in the eyeball image captured by the imaging unit have a predetermined size, and wherein the predetermined size respectively varies between the first and second conditions
However, Hashimoto discloses an illumination unit configured to emit infrared light to an eyeball, wherein the first and second conditions are each a condition that an infrared light reflection region on a pupil region and an iris region in the eyeball image captured by the imaging unit have a predetermined size, and wherein the predetermined size respectively varies between the first and second conditions [See Paragraphs 107-110 and 122-126].
It would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art at time of invention to modify the system disclosed by Taniguchi to add the teachings in Hashimoto as above, to provide a device that improve authentication accuracy of person [See Hashimoto abstract].
Regarding Claim 15, Taniguchi doesn’t explicitly disclose wherein, in a case where a difference in image features between the eyeball image captured by the imaging unit and the first eyeball image falls within a fixed range, the second determination unit is configured to determine that the second condition is satisfied
However, Hashimoto discloses wherein, in a case where a difference in image features between the eyeball image captured by the imaging unit and the first eyeball image falls within a fixed range, the second determination unit is configured to determine that the second condition is satisfied [See Paragraphs 91-98].
It would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art at time of invention to modify the system disclosed by Taniguchi to add the teachings in Hashimoto as above, to provide a device that improve authentication accuracy of person [See Hashimoto abstract].
Regarding Claim 16, Taniguchi doesn’t explicitly disclose wherein the first identification unit integrates similar images among first eyeball images determined to satisfy the first condition by the first determination unit, and executes the first identification processing based on an integrated image, and wherein the second identification unit integrates similar images among second eyeball images determined to satisfy the second condition by the second determination unit, and executes the second identification processing based on an integrated image
However, Hashimoto discloses wherein the first identification unit integrates similar images among first eyeball images determined to satisfy the first condition by the first determination unit, and executes the first identification processing based on an integrated image, and wherein the second identification unit integrates similar images among second eyeball images determined to satisfy the second condition by the second determination unit, and executes the second identification processing based on an integrated image [See Paragraphs 107-110 and 122-126].
It would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art at time of invention to modify the system disclosed by Taniguchi to add the teachings in Hashimoto as above, to provide a device that improve authentication accuracy of person [See Hashimoto abstract].
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 replying 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 extension fee 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 TSION B OWENS whose telephone number is (571)272-3934. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00-4:00.
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, David Czekaj can be reached at 571-272-7327. 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.
/TSION B OWENS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2487
Prosecution Insights