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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites “the distance”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The remaining claims are dependent on claim 1 and are similarly rejected.
Claim 2 recites “a distance” and subsequently “the distance”. It is unclear if the distances are referring to the same “the distance” recited in parent claim 1, or distinct instances of distances. If they are distinct, it is suggested that these terms are applied with identifiers to clearly distinguish them (e.g., “first”, “second”, etc.).
Claim 2 recites “a working range” and “an authentication process”. It is unclear if the working range and the authentication process in claim are the same, or distinct, from the working range and the authentication process recited in parent claim 1. If they are distinct, it is suggested that these terms are applied with identifiers to clearly distinguish them (e.g., “first”, “second”, etc.).
Claim 3 recites “a distance”. It is unclear if the distance is referring to the same “the distance” recited in parent claim 1, or a distinct type of distance. If they are distinct, it is suggested that these terms are applied with identifiers to clearly distinguish them (e.g., “first”, “second”, etc.).
Claim 5 recites “determining a distance”. It is unclear if the distance in claim 5 is the same, or distinct, from the distance recited in parent claim 1. If they are distinct, it is suggested that these terms are applied with identifiers to clearly distinguish them (e.g., “first”, “second”, etc.).
Claim 6 recites “a working range of an authentication process”. It is unclear if the working range and the authentication process in claim 6 are the same, or distinct, from the working range and the authentication process recited in parent claim 1. If they are distinct, it is suggested that these terms are applied with identifiers to clearly distinguish them (e.g., “first”, “second”, etc.).
Claim 7 recites “steps a) to c)”. Step c) does not exist in the current claim or in parent claim 1.
Claim 11 recites “a working range of an authentication process”. It is unclear if the working range and authentication process are the same, or distinct, from the working range and authentication process in parent claim 1. If they are distinct, it is suggested that these terms are applied with identifiers to clearly distinguish them (e.g., “first”, “second”, etc.).
Claim 12 recites “the infrared range”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 13 recites “an object”, “a resource”, and “an authentication process”. It is unclear if the object, the resource, and the authentication process are the same, or distinct, from the object, the resource, and the authentication process in parent claim 1. If they are distinct, it is suggested that these terms are applied with identifiers to clearly distinguish them (e.g., “first”, “second”, etc.).
Claim 15 recites “A device and/or a system for authorizing an object, the system comprising…” The scope of this claim is unclear to what is actually being claimed – a “device” or a “system”. Furthermore, if the claim is directed to only a “device” (e.g., due to the alternative language of “and/or”), it is unclear how the device is also a system (“the system comprising…”). It is suggested that only one of either the device or system should be claimed.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim does not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because claim 14 is directed to a “computer program element with instructions”. Under broadest reasonable interpretation, claim 14 is software. Software per se is not patentably eligible subject matter.
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.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 6-8, 10, and 12-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 8,396,265 to Ross et al. (hereinafter, “Ross”).
As per claim 1: Ross discloses: A computer-implemented method for authorizing an object (using facial recognition to authenticate a user to access one or more functionalities of a computing device [Ross, col. 2, lines 59-63]), the method comprising: a) receiving at least one reflection image showing at least a part of the object while the object is illuminated at least partially with electromagnetic radiation (“…one or both of optical proximity sensor 322 and infrared proximity sensor 332 may utilize a physical property known as "reflectance" or "reflectivity" to calculate a distance between computing device 302 and image 324. For example, optical proximity sensor 322 may emit a light beam towards image 324, and receive a reflection associated with the light beam from image 324.” [Ross, col. 12, lines 33-45]), b) determining if the distance is within or outside of a working range of an authentication process based on the at least one reflection image (determining if the distance is too close, or if the distance equals or exceeds a threshold [Ross, col. 17, line 60 – col. 18, line 4]), and i) receiving a result from the authentication process of the object, and allowing the object to access a resource based on the result from the authentication process being positive and the distance being in the working range of the authentication process (“If anti-spoofing module 220 determines that the distance equals or exceeds the threshold, anti-spoofing module 220 may permit computing device 200 and/or components thereof to perform facial recognition, such as by performing a facial recognition authentication operation (612).” [Ross, col. 17, line 67 – col. 18, line & Fig. 6]; “If the facial recognition programs grant a match to the authentication image (`YES` branch of 614), the facial recognition programs may allow the user access to one or more functionalities controlled by computing device 200 (616).” [Ross, col. 18, lines 20-23 & fig. 6]) or ii) declining the object to access a resource based on the distance being outside of the working range (“Anti-spoofing module 220 may then determine whether the distance is too close, such as by comparing the measured/estimated distance with a threshold value (604)….anti-spoofing module may cause computing device 200 and/or components thereof to deny access based on facial recognition authentication (608).” [Ross, col. 17, lines 60-67 & Fig. 6]).
As per claim 2: Ross discloses all limitations of claim 1. Furthermore, Ross discloses: wherein determining if the distance is within or outside of a working range of an authentication process comprises determining a distance based on the at least one reflection image and comparing the distance with a working range (“…one or both of optical proximity sensor 322 and infrared proximity sensor 332 may utilize a physical property known as "reflectance" or "reflectivity" to calculate a distance between computing device 302 and image 324. For example, optical proximity sensor 322 may emit a light beam towards image 324, and receive a reflection associated with the light beam from image 324.” [Ross, col. 12, lines 33-45]; and determining if the distance is too close, or if the distance equals or exceeds a threshold [Ross, col. 17, line 60 – col. 18, line 4]).
As per claim 4: Ross discloses all the limitations of claim 1. Furthermore, Ross discloses: wherein the authentication process is based on biometric information (the captured image for authentication is a facial image [Ross, col. 17, lines49-52]).
As per claim 6: Ross discloses all limitations of claim 1. Furthermore, Ross discloses: wherein the object is provided with feedback based on determining if the distance is within or outside of a working range of an authentication process (“Computing device 102 may implement one or more techniques of this disclosure to detect an attempt to spoof, and deny authentication by facial recognition based on the detection. As shown in FIG. 1B, computing device 102 may display failure notification 118 within modified GUI 116.” [Ross, col. 7, lines 26-31]).
As per claim 7: Ross discloses all limitations of claim 1. Furthermore, Ross discloses: wherein at least the steps a) to c) are repeated at least once in response to the distance being outside of the working range on the authentication process (“At this point, the facial recognition programs may permit the user to try again to authenticate by facial recognition, sometimes by capturing another authentication image (601).” [Ross, col. 18, lines 16-19]).
As per claim 8: Ross discloses all limitations of claim 1. Furthermore, Ross discloses: wherein the at least one reflection image is received and/or generated in response to receiving an unlock request initiated by the object (the user actively causes a camera of the computing device to capture an authentication image to unlock the device [Ross, col. 5, lines 42-49]).
As per claim 10: Ross discloses all limitations of claim 1. Furthermore, Ross discloses: wherein more than one distance is determined for more than one location in the reflection image and the object is allowed to access a resource based on the more than one distance being in the working range (“…a feature-based method, e.g., a method that computes a distance based on a number of pixels observed between facial landmarks. For example, computing device 302 may recognize estimated distance 328 to be an actual distance between computing device 302 and authorized user 326, and may determine that a calculated feature-based distance is different than estimated distance 328, by a margin corresponding to the correction factor.” [Ross, col. 13, lines 59-66]).
As per claim 12: Ross discloses all limitations of claim 1. Furthermore, Ross discloses: wherein the electromagnetic radiation comprises patterned electromagnetic radiation and/or is in the infrared range (“Proximity sensor 122 may implement one or more sensing technologies, including, for example, capacitive displacement, laser rangefinder technology, magnetic sensing technology, infrared proximity sensing technology, photometric (or reflective) technology, radar, ionizing, and sonar sensor technology, to name a few.” [Ross, col. 4, lines 36-41]).
As per claim 13: Ross discloses all limitations of claim 1. Furthermore, Ross discloses: A method of using the distance as obtained by the method according to claim 1, the method comprising using the distance for allowing an object to access a resource and/or providing advice to an object associated with an authentication process (enabling an authorized user to gain access to one or more functionalities controlled on the computing device based on successfully performing facial recognition initiated by the measured distance [Ross, col. 17, line 53 – col. 18, line 49]; the user may be notified of the authentication process [Ross, col. 7, lines 26-31]).
As per claim 14: Claim 14 is different in overall scope from claim 1. Claim 14 is directed to a computer program element with instructions, when executed, to perform the method of claim 1. Therefore, the response provided for claim 1 is equally applicable to claim 14.
As per claim 15: Claim 15 is different in overall scope from claim 1. Claim 15 is directed to a device and/or system performing the method of claim 1. Therefore, the response provided for claim 1 is equally applicable to claim 15.
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.
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.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ross in view of Bermejo, E., Fernandez-Blanco, E., Valsecchi, A., Mesejo, P., Ibáñez, O., & Imaizumi, K. (hereinafter, “Bermejo”). FacialSCDnet: A deep learning approach for the estimation of subject-to-camera distance in facial photographs. 22 August 2022.
As per claim 3: Ross discloses all limitations of claim 1. Ross does not explicitly disclose, but Bermejo discloses: further comprising determining a distance based on the at least one reflection image by using a model (“…a deep learning approach to estimate the subject-to-camera distance of facial photographs: FacialSCDnet.” [Bermejo, Abstract]; FacialSCDnet is a system of four deep learning models [Bermejo, Section 5.2, pg. 4]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the distance measuring methods in Ross to a distance measurement technique utilizing deep learning as suggested in Bermejo. The method of Bermejo is able to achieve accurate estimation of a subject-to-camera distance in any frontal or lateral head pose, robust to facial hair, glasses, and partial occlusion. See [Bermejo, Abstract].
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ross in view of US 2013/0128070 to Ishikawa (hereinafter, “Ishikawa”) and US 2018/0147726 to Kobayashi et al. (hereinafter, “Kobayashi”).
As per claim 5: Ross discloses all limitations of claim 1. Ishikawa is directed to determining the distance of an image utilizing various kinds of information [Ishikawa, ¶0145]. Additionally, Kobayashi discloses known distance measuring techniques [Kobayashi, ¶0002]. Therefore, Ross in view of Ishikawa and Kobayashi disclose: further comprising determining a distance based on the at least one reflection by using one or more of depth from focus (focusing position and depth map [Ishikawa, ¶0145]), depth from defocus (depth from defocus [Ishikawa, ¶0145), triangulation (calculating a distance from a camera to the target object based on the principle of a triangulation method [Kobayashi, ¶0002]), depth-from-photon-ratio (ratio between known electromagnetic power of a light beam and measured power of reflection [Ross, col. 12, lines 40-45]), determining a distance based on the distance between at least two spatial features based on a flood image and combinations thereof (computing a distance based on number of pixels observed between facial landmarks in an image [Ross, col. 13, lines 55-61]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the distance measuring methods of Ross to any other known distance measuring methods in the art with a reasonable expectation of success. Ishikawa and Kobayashi disclosed various methods of measuring the distance of a captured object from a camera. One having ordinary skill would have tried those methods in Ross to achieve the goal of spoof detection to confirm that an authentic object was captured from an actual physical distance for biometric authentication.
Claims 9 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ross in view of US 2004/0243567 to Levy (hereinafter, “Levy”).
As per claim 9: Ross discloses all limitations of claim 1. Ross does not explicitly disclose, but Levy discloses: wherein the method further comprises of and/or the authentication process comprises of at least one of: receiving an image of at least a part of the object (a test or query image [Levy, ¶0117]), generating a low-level representation of the image (approximating the image as a linear combination of eigenfaces, which form a new reduced-dimension space [Levy, ¶0117-0118]); determining a matching score of the low-level representation of the image and a low-level representation template, and providing an authentication result associated with the matching score (classifying images based on comparison with template parameters to yield on probabilities or scores, the scores used in determining which class a query pattern likely belongs to [Levy, ¶0133]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the facial recognition program in Ross to the facial recognition method disclosed in Levy. Levy disclosed representation in facial recognition algorithms [Levy, ¶0106], and one form of representation is a holistic image-based approach that reduces dimensionalities (i.e., “low-level representation”) to discard noise and retain the most important features [Levy, ¶0118]. One would have been motivated to implement Levy’s method to make the face recognition algorithm more or less insensitive to noise, small occlusions, or modest variations in background [Levy, ¶0119].
As per claim 11: Ross discloses all limitations of claim 1. The motivation for incorporating Levy in claim 9 is also applicable in claim 11. Therefore, Ross in view of Levy disclose: wherein the distance is determined being in the working range of the authentication process based on determining if the distance is within or outside of a working range of an authentication process prior to providing the result of the authentication process or prior to generating a low-level representation of the reflection image (if the measured distance is below a threshold distance, denying authentication prior to performing facial recognition analysis (if within the threshold, the facial recognition analysis would have been performed) [Ross, col. 17, lines 21-24 & Fig. 6]; the facial recognition analysis may also have been the algorithm disclosed in Levy).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 2022/0374643: A thermal image of a user is compared with a stored thermal image to determine if a captured first image with a CMOS camera should be output.
US 2021/0158509: A depth image is processed from a processed infrared image to determine if an object from the depth image is genuine.
US 2019/0236252: A biometric image of a palm is captured by emitting light onto the palm and receiving reflected light.
US 2019/0044723: Multiple light sources are projected onto a user’s face, and an IR camera captures the reflections to determine multiple depth points indicating a distance from the IR camera.
US 2015/0161434: Light is reflected off an external object and returned to a device to analyze time of flight and reflectivity to measure a distance.
US 2010/0127827: Palm movement information calculated from illumination and received reflected light are used for biometric authentication.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT B LEUNG whose telephone number is (571)270-1453. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Thurs: 10am-7pm 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, JUNG KIM can be reached at 571-272-3804. 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.
/ROBERT B LEUNG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2494
