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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 01/31/2025 & 08/08/2026 were filed after the mailing date of the non-final rejection on 06/03/2026. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 19 is objected to because of the following informalities: A period appears after, “…for each image capture.” Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 5, 10-12, 17, & 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 as being anticipated by Irie & Yoshimura (WO 2021166061 A1, hereinafter, "Irie").
Regarding Claim 5, Irie teaches an information processing apparatus comprising: at least one memory that is configured to store instructions; and at least one first processor (Irie, Fig. 4, pg. 6, para. 1, ln. 3-4, "…includes a processor 211, a memory 212…") that is configured to execute the instructions to: acquire position information indicating a position of a target (Irie, Fig. 5, pg. 6, para. 8, ln. 2-3, "…the gate device 10 is a device that automatically examines the user for immigration."); control a first illumination unit that is configured to irradiate first light toward a first area, such that the first illumination unit illuminates the target with the first light, in response to the target being located on one side in a predetermined direction from a predetermined positions (Irie, Fig. 5, pg. 7, para. 1, ln. 2-4, "…the gate device 10 controls the luminosity of the upper lighting 404 and the lower lighting 405 mounted on the upper and lower sides."); and control a second illumination unit that is disposed on the one side in the predetermined direction from the first illumination unit and that irradiates second light toward a second area located on another side in the predetermined direction from the first area, such that the second illumination unit illuminates the target with the second light, in response to the target being located on the other side in the predetermined direction from the predetermined position (Irie, Fig. 5, pg. 7, para. 1, ln. 2-4, "…the gate device 10 controls the luminosity of the upper lighting 404 and the lower lighting 405 mounted on the upper and lower sides.").
Regarding Claim 10, Irie teaches an information processing system comprising: an imaging unit that captures an image of a target passing through a passageway (Irie, Fig. 5, pg. 6, para. 8, ln. 2-3, "…the gate device 10 is a device that automatically examines the user for immigration."); a lighting apparatus that illuminates the target with illumination light, the lighting apparatus including a first illumination unit that irradiates first light toward a first area, and a second illumination unit that is disposed on one side in a predetermined direction from the first illumination unit and that irradiates second light toward a second area located on another side in the predetermined direction from the first area (Irie, Fig. 5, pg. 7, para. 1, ln. 2-4, "…the gate device 10 controls the luminosity of the upper lighting 404 and the lower lighting 405 mounted on the upper and lower sides."); and a gate provided in the passageway, the gate being opened and closed based on an authentication result of the target based on an image capture result by the imaging unit (Irie, Fig. 2, pg. 3, para. 5, ln. 2-4, "The gate device 10 includes a gate configured to be openable and closable. The gate device 10 opens the gate and passes the user when it is determined that the person standing in front of the device has passed the immigration examination…").
Regarding Claim 11, Irie teaches a first lighting apparatus that is disposed on one side of the passageway and that illuminates the target with first illumination light serving as the illumination light and a second lighting apparatus that is disposed on another side of the passageway and that illuminates the target with second illumination light serving as the illumination light, as the lighting apparatus (Irie, Fig. 5, pg. 7, para. 1, ln. 2-4, "…the gate device 10 controls the luminosity of the upper lighting 404 and the lower lighting 405 mounted on the upper and lower sides."); and at least one memory that is configured to store instructions (Irie, Fig. 4, pg. 6, para. 1, ln. 3-4, "…includes a processor 211, a memory 212…"); and at least one first processor that is configured to execute the instructions to: control the first and second lighting apparatuses to illuminate the target with the first light and the second light, respectively, in response to the imaging unit capturing an image (Irie, Fig. 5, pg. 7, para. 1, ln. 2-4, "…the gate device 10 controls the luminosity of the upper lighting 404 and the lower lighting 405 mounted on the upper and lower sides.").
Regarding Claim 12, Irie teaches the at least one first processor is configured to execute the instructions to: determine whether or not the target is wearing eyeglasses, switch an operating mode of the first and second lighting apparatuses to an eyeglass wearing mode in which the first and second lighting apparatuses illuminate the target with the first illumination light and the second illumination light in different timing, respectively, in response to the target wearing the eyeglasses (Irie, pg. 16, para. 7, ln. 3-4, "…the luminosity of the light source may be controlled depending on the length of the hair and whether or not the glasses are worn."); and switch the operating mode of the first and second lighting apparatuses to an eyeglass not-wearing mode in which the first and second lighting apparatuses illuminate the target with the first illumination light and the second illumination light in same timing, respectively, in response to the target not wearing the eyeglasses (Irie, pg. 16, para. 7, ln. 3-4, "…the luminosity of the light source may be controlled depending on the length of the hair and whether or not the glasses are worn.").
Regarding Claim 17, Irie teaches a reflecting surface capable of reflecting light from the target toward the imaging unit, wherein the at least one first processor is configured to execute the instructions to: control which of element illuminators included in the lighting apparatus is to be turned on, based on a direction of the reflecting surface (Irie, Fig. 6, pg. 7, para. 5, ln. 7-8, "…the gate device 10 may include a reflector for reflecting the light emitted from the upper illumination 404.").
Regarding Claim 20, Irie teaches an information processing method comprising: acquiring position information indicating a position of a target (Irie, Fig. 5, pg. 6, para. 8, ln. 2-3, "…the gate device 10 is a device that automatically examines the user for immigration."); controlling a first illumination unit that is configured to irradiate first light toward a first area, such that the first illumination unit illuminates the target with the first light, in response to the target being located on one side in a predetermined direction from a predetermined position (Irie, Fig. 5, pg. 7, para. 1, ln. 2-4, "…the gate device 10 controls the luminosity of the upper lighting 404 and the lower lighting 405 mounted on the upper and lower sides."); and controlling a second illumination unit that is disposed on the one side in the predetermined direction from the first illumination unit and that irradiates second light toward a second area located on another side in the predetermined direction from the first area, such that the second illumination unit illuminates the target with the second light, in response to the target being located on the other side in the predetermined direction from the predetermined position (Irie, Fig. 5, pg. 7, para. 1, ln. 2-4, "…the gate device 10 controls the luminosity of the upper lighting 404 and the lower lighting 405 mounted on the upper and lower sides.").
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.
Claims 6, 7, & 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Irie in view of Kim & Chae (EP 1326197 A2, hereinafter, "Kim").
Regarding Claim 6, Irie teaches the limitations of dependent Claim 5 as noted above. Kim teaches the at least one first processor is configured to execute the instructions to: control a third illumination unit that is disposed on the one side in the predetermined direction from the first illumination unit and on the other side in the predetermined direction from the second illumination unit and that irradiates third light toward a third area located on the other side in the predetermined direction from the first area and on the one side in the predetermined direction from the second area, such that the third illumination unit illuminates the target with the third light, as well as controlling the first illumination unit such that the first illumination unit illuminates the target with the first light, in response to the target being located on the one side in the predetermined direction from the predetermined position, and control the third illumination unit such that the third illumination unit illuminates the target with the third light, as well as controlling the second illumination unit such that the second illumination unit illuminates the target with the second light, in response to the target being located on the one side in the predetermined direction from the predetermined position (Kim, Fig. 5, pg. 5, para. 3, ln. 14-20, "…a left illumination area, a right illumination area and an upper illumination area are allocated to the iris database. Here, the iris code generated using the iris image captured from an iris when left illuminator is turned on is registered on the left illumination area of the iris database. The iris code generated using the iris image captured from an iris when right illuminator is turned on is registered on the right illumination area of the iris database. Of course, the iris code that can be generated when upper illuminator is turned on is registered on the upper illumination area of the iris database.). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to combine the teachings of Kim with those of Irie because it is well known in the art to use a processor to control a plurality of light sources aimed at different areas.
Regarding Claim 7, Irie teaches the limitations of dependent Claim 5 as noted above. Irie teaches each of the first and second illumination units includes a plurality of element illuminators (Irie, pg. 16, para. 5, ln. 2-3, "…one of the upper lighting 404 and the lower lighting 405 is composed of a plurality of light sources." It would be obvious to try using a plurality of light sources in both 404 and 405. See also CN 113515975 A, Fig. 3), and the at least one first processor is configured to execute the instructions to: acquire distance information indicating a distance from the first and second illumination units to the target (Irie, pg. 8, para. 4, ln. 5-6, "…analyzing an image obtained from a distance sensor or a camera using infrared rays."). Irie does not teach and control which of the plurality of element illuminators is to be turned on, based on at least one of the distance and the position of the target. However, Kim teaches control which of the plurality of element illuminators is to be turned on, based on at least one of the distance and the position of the target (Kim, Fig. 5, pg. 6, para. 1, ln. 4-7, "…if an iris code exists on the area corresponding to left illumination, the recognition result is reported to a user [S523 and S526]. However, if an iris code does not exist on the area corresponding to left illumination, the illumination location is changed and recognition is performed using a new iris code generated from the new illumination location [S529]."). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to combine the teachings of Kim with those of Irie because it is well known in the art to control lighting based on the distance and position of a target.
Regarding Claim 16, Irie teaches the limitations of dependent Claim 10 as noted above. Kim teaches the at least one first processor is configured to execute the instructions to: authenticate the target by using an image generated by the imaging unit capturing an image of the target (Kim, Fig. 5, pg. 5, para. 3, ln. 14-20, "…a left illumination area, a right illumination area and an upper illumination area are allocated to the iris database. Here, the iris code generated using the iris image captured from an iris when left illuminator is turned on is registered on the left illumination area of the iris database. The iris code generated using the iris image captured from an iris when right illuminator is turned on is registered on the right illumination area of the iris database. Of course, the iris code that can be generated when upper illuminator is turned on is registered on the upper illumination area of the iris database.); and control which of a plurality of element illuminators included in the lighting apparatus is to be turned on, based on an authentication result of the target (Kim, Fig. 5, pg. 5, para. 3, ln. 14-20, "…a left illumination area, a right illumination area and an upper illumination area are allocated to the iris database. Here, the iris code generated using the iris image captured from an iris when left illuminator is turned on is registered on the left illumination area of the iris database. The iris code generated using the iris image captured from an iris when right illuminator is turned on is registered on the right illumination area of the iris database. Of course, the iris code that can be generated when upper illuminator is turned on is registered on the upper illumination area of the iris database.). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to combine the teachings of Kim with those of Irie because it is well known in the art to authenticate a target using an image and control which lights are turned on based on the result of said authentication.
Claims 8, 18, & 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Irie in view of Peng & Zhou (CN 113515975 A, hereinafter, "Peng").
Regarding Claim 8, Irie teaches the limitations of dependent Claim 5 as noted above. Peng teaches each of the first and second illumination units includes a plurality of element illuminators, and the elemental illuminators included in the first and second illumination units are arranged in a matrix (Peng, Fig. 3); and control which column of the plurality of element illuminators is to be turned on, based on the distance (Peng, Fig. 3, pg. 12, para. 5, ln. 1-2, "…the 12 light supplementing lamp is divided into six groups alternately flicker [A1, A4], [A2, A3], [B1, B4], [B2, B3], [C1, C4], [C2, C3], each group of lighting 100-150ms." It is obvious that, if a matrix of lights can be programmed to flash sequentially, they can also be programmed to illuminate in columns based on distance). Peng does not teach the at least one first processor is configured to execute the instructions to: acquire distance information indicating a distance from the first and second illumination units to the target. However, Irie teaches the at least one first processor is configured to execute the instructions to: acquire distance information indicating a distance from the first and second illumination units to the target (Irie, pg. 8, para. 4, ln. 5-6, "…analyzing an image obtained from a distance sensor or a camera using infrared rays."). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to combine the teachings of Peng with those of Irie because it is well known in the art to use two illumination units with a plurality of element illuminators in each of them and control which column of the plurality of element indicators is to be turned on based on distance.
Regarding Claim 18, Irie teaches the limitations of dependent Claim 10 as noted above. Peng teaches the lighting apparatus illuminates the target with light of a predetermined wavelength in a near-infrared area or an infrared area, as the illumination light, and the imaging unit captures an iris image of the target illuminated with the light of the predetermined wavelength (Peng, Fig. 3, pg. 12, para. 3, ln. 1-3, "…the near infrared light supplementing lamp comprises 12 light supplementing lamps A1, A2, A3, A4, B1, B2, B3, B4, C1, C2, C3; C4, wherein the wavelength of A1 to A4 is 810nm, the wavelength of B1 to B4 is 850nm, the wavelength of C1 to C4 is 910nm."). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to combine the teachings of Peng with those of Irie because it is well known in the art to use near infrared lighting at multiple predetermined wavelengths.
Regarding Claim 19, Irie teaches the limitations of dependent Claim 10 as noted above. Irie teaches the at least one first processor is configured to execute the instructions to: acquire at least one of position information indicating a position of the target and distance information indicating a distance from the lighting apparatus to the target (Irie, pg. 8, para. 4, ln. 4-6, "…the gate device 10 detects an object placed on the side portion 432 by analyzing an image obtained from a distance sensor or a camera using infrared rays."). Irie does not teach control an attitude/posture of the lighting apparatus to change an inclination of the first member CD1 based on at least one of the position information and the distance information, for each image capture, an inclination of a transmission surface that transmits the illumination light and that intersects an optical path of the illumination light irradiated by the lighting apparatus, based on at least one of the position information and the distance information. However, Peng teaches control an attitude/posture of the lighting apparatus to change an inclination of the first member CD1 based on at least one of the position information and the distance information, for each image capture, an inclination of a transmission surface that transmits the illumination light and that intersects an optical path of the illumination light irradiated by the lighting apparatus, based on at least one of the position information and the distance information (Peng, pg. 5, para. 2, ln. 1-3, "…a first positioning module for performing iris positioning on the first iris image; if not located to the iris, judging whether the condition of performing light rotation is satisfied; if so, rotating the second pan-tilt, so that the light spot keeps away from the iris region.").
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Irie in view of Yoda (US 20050212654 A1, hereinafter, "Yoda").
Regarding Claim 9, Irie teaches the limitations of dependent Claim 5. Yoda teaches the at least one first processor is configured to execute the instructions to: detect brightness of the target in response to the target being illuminated, and control illuminator intensity of at least one of the first light and the second light, based on the brightness (Yoda, [0015], ln. 2-4, "…the second authentication section may detect brightness of the image of the person-to-be-authenticated photographed by the first photographing section, and control the luminous intensity of the flash section based on the detected brightness of the image."). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to combine the teachings of Yoda with those of Irie because it is well known in the art to control illumination based on detected target brightness.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Irie in view of Willis (US 20200234040 A1, hereinafter, "Willis").
Regarding Claim 13, Irie teaches the limitations of dependent Claim 11 as noted above. Willis teaches based on at least one of image capture timing of image capture of the target by the imaging unit, and an exposure time of the image capture, the at least one first processor is configured to execute the instructions to switch the operating mode of the first and second lighting apparatuses between a discontinuous mode in which the target is discontinuously illuminated with the first or second illumination light based on the image capture timing and a continuous mode in which the target is continuously illuminated with the first or second illumination light independently of the image capture timing of the target (Willis, Fig. 1, [0045], ln. 1-4, "…the biometric sensor 180 may include an image sensor that captures a series of images (continuously, periodically, or otherwise) of the subject 150. The biometric capture device 100 may operate the emitter 130 in order to maintain consistent lighting or other environmental parameters across the series of images…"). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to combine the teachings of Willis with those of Irie because it is well known in the art to switch between continuous and discontinuous lighting modes based on timing and exposure.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 14 & 15 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding Claim 14, the prior art of record – taken alone or in combination – fails to teach or render obvious a third lighting apparatus that is disposed on the one side of the first passageway and that illuminates the target passing through the second passageway with third illumination light serving as the illumination light; and a fourth lighting apparatus that is disposed on the other side of the first passageway and that illuminates the target passing through the third passageway with fourth illumination light serving as the illumination light.
Regarding Claim 15, it would be allowable because it is dependent on Claim 14.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEVEN DANIEL BARRY whose telephone number is (571)270-0432. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 0730-1630.
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, Lin Ye can be reached on 517-272-7372. 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.
/STEVEN DANIEL BARRY/Examiner, Art Unit 2638
/LIN YE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2638
Prosecution Insights