DETAILED ACTION
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7-8 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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4-6, 10-11, 13, 15 and 17-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Takeshi JP 2008-028434 hereinafter referred to as Takeshi.
In regards to claim 1, Takeshi teaches:
“An information processing system comprising: a camera being capable of capturing an image of a target; at least one memory storing instructions; and at least one processor configured to execute the instructions to perform operations”
Takeshi Figure 1 teaches a mobile phone 3 with imaging device 10. Takeshi teaches in Figure 2 and associated text the photographing apparatus 1 includes a photographing unit 10 that photographs a subject.
“comprising: acquiring state information indicating at least a state of the target at a time point at which the target is located at a point farther away from the camera than a focus of the camera”
Takeshi Figure 2 and associated text teaches a photographing state detection unit 20 that detects a photographing state of the subject from image data acquired by the photographing unit 10. Takeshi Figure 6 and associated paragraphs teaches the left and right direction of the surface facing the mobile phone 3 is set as X, the up and down direction is set as Y, and the direction perpendicular to the mobile phone 3 is set as the Z direction. Takeshi teaches in Figure 6 the eye 11C is located in the view angle range that can be used for authentication, but not in the focus range. The Examiner interprets from Figure 6 that the eye positions 11A and 11C are located at a point farther away from the camera than a focus of the camera.
“generating, by use of the state information, state information at capture indicating a result of estimating a state of the target at a time point at which the target reaches in focus of the camera”
Takeshi teaches in Figure 6 and associated text the eye position detection unit 21 and the image blur detection unit 22 each have “0” “0” for the eye 11A, “0” “1” for the eye 11B, In the case of 11C, “1” “0” is notified to the vibration control unit 31 and in the case of eye 11, “1” “1” is notified. Further, here, when “0” “0” is notified to the vibration control unit 31, vibration pattern A is notified, and when “0” “1” is notified, vibration pattern B, “1” “0” is notified. In some cases, the vibration control unit 31 selects and notifies the vibration unit 32 of the vibration pattern C, and further notifies the vibration unit 32 of a control signal that does not cause vibration when “1” and “1” are notified. The Examiner interprets that when the “1” “1” state is notified then the target is in the focus range of the camera.
“and generating, by use of the state information at capture, degradation information relating to degradation estimated to occur in a target image acquired by capturing an image of the target with the camera”
Takeshi teaches in relation to embodiment (1) the imaging apparatus 1 is configured to generate such vibrations at positions outside the appropriate imaging range, for example, the blur detection accuracy and eye position detection by the image blur detection unit 22 are caused by this vibration. There is a possibility that the detection accuracy of the eye position by the unit 21 is deteriorated. For this reason, for example, it is possible to prevent such deterioration in blur amount detection accuracy and eye position detection accuracy by using the non-vibration period 201 in each vibration pattern described above. That is, for example, in the blur amount detection in the shooting state detection unit 20, the image blur detection unit 22 synchronizes with the non-vibration period 201 in each vibration pattern, and the image data acquired by the shooting unit 10 during the non-vibration period 201 is used. It may be configured to detect the amount of blur. Thereby, blurring of an image caused by such vibration can be prevented and only the blur amount corresponding to the photographing distance of the eyes is detected, so that deterioration of blur amount detection accuracy can be prevented. Similarly, the eye position detection unit 21 is configured to detect the eye position using image data acquired by the imaging unit 10 during the non-vibration period 201 in synchronization with the non-vibration period 201 in each vibration pattern. It is good.
“outputting control information according to the degradation information at at least one of times before an image of the target is captured with the camera and at which an image of the target is captured with the camera”
Takeshi teaches in Figure 6 and associated text the eye position detection unit 21 and the image blur detection unit 22 each have “0” “0” for the eye 11A, “0” “1” for the eye 11B, In the case of 11C, “1” “0” is notified to the vibration control unit 31 and in the case of eye 11, “1” “1” is notified. Further, here, when “0” “0” is notified to the vibration control unit 31, vibration pattern A is notified, and when “0” “1” is notified, vibration pattern B, “1” “0” is notified. In some cases, the vibration control unit 31 selects and notifies the vibration unit 32 of the vibration pattern C, and further notifies the vibration unit 32 of a control signal that does not cause vibration when “1” and “1” are notified.
In regards to claim 2, Takeshi teaches all the limitations of claim 1 and further teaches:
“outputting the control information comprises outputting the control information at at least one of times before the target reaches the focus of the camera and at which the target reaches in focus of the camera”
Takeshi teaches in Figure 6 and associated text the eye position detection unit 21 and the image blur detection unit 22 each have “0” “0” for the eye 11A, “0” “1” for the eye 11B, In the case of 11C, “1” “0” is notified to the vibration control unit 31 and in the case of eye 11, “1” “1” is notified. Further, here, when “0” “0” is notified to the vibration control unit 31, vibration pattern A is notified, and when “0” “1” is notified, vibration pattern B, “1” “0” is notified. In some cases, the vibration control unit 31 selects and notifies the vibration unit 32 of the vibration pattern C, and further notifies the vibration unit 32 of a control signal that does not cause vibration when “1” and “1” are notified.
In regards to claim 4, Takeshi teaches all the limitations of claim 1 and further teaches:
“wherein the degradation information indicates one or more degradation factors to occur in the target image and a degree of degradation of each of the one or more degradation factors”
Takeshi Figure 2 and associated text teaches a photographing state detection unit 20 that detects a photographing state of the subject from image data acquired by the photographing unit 10. Takeshi Figure 6 and associated paragraphs teaches the left and right direction of the surface facing the mobile phone 3 is set as X, the up and down direction is set as Y, and the direction perpendicular to the mobile phone 3 is set as the Z direction. Takeshi teaches in Figure 6 the eye 11C is located in the view angle range that can be used for authentication, but not in the focus range. The Examiner interprets that position located at out of focus range of the camera is an indication that focus is degraded.
In regards to claim 5, Takeshi teaches all the limitations of claim 4 and further teaches:
“wherein the target image is an image including an iris, and the one or more degradation factors include one or more of focus blur, motion blur, eyelid occlusion, lighting reflection occlusion, and off-angle”
Takeshi teaches in Figure 6 the eye 11C is located in the view angle range that can be used for authentication, but not in the focus range. The Examiner interprets that position located at out of focus range of the camera is an indication of focus blur.
In regards to claim 6, Takeshi teaches all the limitations of claim 1 and further teaches:
“wherein the operations further comprise estimating, by use of the degradation information, quality of the target image, the quality indicating suitability as an image to be used for recognition, and outputting the control information comprises outputting the control information according to the quality”
Takeshi teaches in Figure 6 and associated text the eye position detection unit 21 and the image blur detection unit 22 each have “0” “0” for the eye 11A, “0” “1” for the eye 11B, In the case of 11C, “1” “0” is notified to the vibration control unit 31 and in the case of eye 11, “1” “1” is notified. Further, here, when “0” “0” is notified to the vibration control unit 31, vibration pattern A is notified, and when “0” “1” is notified, vibration pattern B, “1” “0” is notified. In some cases, the vibration control unit 31 selects and notifies the vibration unit 32 of the vibration pattern C, and further notifies the vibration unit 32 of a control signal that does not cause vibration when “1” and “1” are notified. The Examiner interprets that the various vibration patterns that are triggered by the combinations of “1” and “0” are an indication of quality of the target image. The pattern associated with the indication of “1” “1” indicates the image is suitable for recognition.
In regards to claim 10, Takeshi teaches all the limitations of claim 1 and further teaches:
“wherein the state information further indicates a capture condition of the camera”
Takeshi teaches the user moves his / her eyes or the mobile phone 3 to a position where there is a change in vibration. The Examiner interprets that moving the phone based on the indication is an indication that the focus position of the camera is not good.
In regards to claim 11, Takeshi teaches all the limitations of claim 1 and further teaches:
“wherein the state information indicates one or more of an exposure time of the camera, a state of lighting for the target, a focal position of the camera, aperture size of a lens of the camera, and brightness of a capture region of the camera”
Takeshi teaches the user moves his / her eyes or the mobile phone 3 to a position where there is a change in vibration. The Examiner interprets that moving the phone based on the indication is an indication that the focus position of the camera is not good.
In regards to claim 13, Takeshi teaches all the limitations of claim 1 and further teaches:
“wherein outputting the control information comprises outputting the control information for executing a notification in a case where the degradation information satisfies a predetermined condition C”
Takeshi teaches in Figure 6 and associated text the eye position detection unit 21 and the image blur detection unit 22 each have “0” “0” for the eye 11A, “0” “1” for the eye 11B, In the case of 11C, “1” “0” is notified to the vibration control unit 31 and in the case of eye 11, “1” “1” is notified. Further, here, when “0” “0” is notified to the vibration control unit 31, vibration pattern A is notified, and when “0” “1” is notified, vibration pattern B, “1” “0” is notified. In some cases, the vibration control unit 31 selects and notifies the vibration unit 32 of the vibration pattern C, and further notifies the vibration unit 32 of a control signal that does not cause vibration when “1” and “1” are notified. The Examiner interprets that the various vibration patterns that are triggered by the combinations of “1” and “0” can represent predetermined conditions.
In regards to claim 15, Takeshi teaches all the limitations of claim 1 and further teaches:
“wherein outputting the control information comprises outputting the control information for controlling a capture condition of the camera, based on the degradation information”
Takeshi teaches the user moves his / her eyes or the mobile phone 3 to a position where there is a change in vibration. The Examiner interprets focus position of the camera is a capture condition.
In regards to claim 17, Takeshi teaches all the limitations of claim 1 and claim 17 contains similar limitations. Therefore, claim 17 is rejected for similar reasoning as applied to claim 1.
In regards to claim 18, Takeshi teaches all the limitations of claim 1 and claim 18 contains similar limitations. Therefore, claim 18 is rejected for similar reasoning as applied to claim 1.
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.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takeshi in view of Haller et al. US 2023/0367857 hereinafter referred to as Haller.
In regards to claim 9, Takeshi teaches all the limitations of claim 1 but does not explicitly teach:
“wherein the state information indicates one or more of an orientation of a face, a body pose, an orientation of a gaze, a movement velocity, and presence or absence of wearing of glasses”
Haller teaches [0148] a camera configured to capture images of an eye region of a user; and [0149] a controller comprising one or more processors configured to: [0150] determine and evaluate a current eye pose of the user, wherein the eye pose indicates a current eye location and orientation with respect to the camera; [0151] determine based on the evaluation that the current eye pose is not satisfactory for capturing images to be used in a biometric authentication process; [0152] signal the user to adjust their eye pose to improve a viewing angle of the camera with respect to the eye region; and [0153] perform biometric authentication for the user based on one or more images of the eye region of the user captured by the camera subsequent to the user adjusting their eye pose in response to the signal. It would have been obvious for a person with ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to have modified Takeshi in view of Haller to have included the features of “wherein the state information indicates one or more of an orientation of a face, a body pose, an orientation of a gaze, a movement velocity, and presence or absence of wearing of glasses” because adjusting the pose of the user with respect to the imaging system manually or mechanically may ensure a desired level biometric authentication performance, as better images of the eye or eye region may be captured (Haller [0005]).
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takeshi in view of Mostofi US 2019/0341150 hereinafter referred to as Mostofi.
In regards to claim 12, Takeshi teaches all the limitations of claim 1 but does not explicitly teach:
“wherein generating the degradation information comprises generating the degradation information by use of a trained neural network that accepts an input of the state information at capture and outputs the degradation information”
Mostofi teaches an invention in which images are taken with a mobile phone and quality is assessed by a quality assessment module. Mostofi paragraph [0042] teaches the app further includes an image quality assessment module 66, implemented as a convolutional neural network, which assesses the quality of radiographic images captured by the smartphone camera for suitability for use by machine learning algorithms to generate a diagnosis. The network is trained to detect error conditions, such as user errors for example not capturing sufficient amount of the radiograph, insufficient illumination, too much glare, camera focus issues, or radiography technique quality problems (e.g., inspiration issues, patent rotated, inclusion issues, radiograph over or under exposed. It would have been obvious for a person with ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to have modified Takeshi in view of Haller to have included the features of “wherein generating the degradation information comprises generating the degradation information by use of a trained neural network that accepts an input of the state information at capture and outputs the degradation information” for assessing the quality or suitability of the at least one photograph captured by the camera (Mostofi [0020]).
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takeshi in view of Wucher et al. US 2023/0053026 hereinafter referred to as Wucher.
In regards to claim 13, Takeshi teaches all the limitations of claim 1 and further teaches:
“wherein outputting the control information comprises [preventing] image capture of the target by the camera in a case where the degradation information satisfies a predetermined condition D”
Takeshi teaches in Figure 6 and associated text the eye position detection unit 21 and the image blur detection unit 22 each have “0” “0” for the eye 11A, “0” “1” for the eye 11B, In the case of 11C, “1” “0” is notified to the vibration control unit 31 and in the case of eye 11, “1” “1” is notified. Further, here, when “0” “0” is notified to the vibration control unit 31, vibration pattern A is notified, and when “0” “1” is notified, vibration pattern B, “1” “0” is notified. In some cases, the vibration control unit 31 selects and notifies the vibration unit 32 of the vibration pattern C, and further notifies the vibration unit 32 of a control signal that does not cause vibration when “1” and “1” are notified. The Examiner interprets that the various vibration patterns that are triggered by the combinations of “1” and “0” can represent predetermined conditions.
Takeshi does not teach:
“canceling [image capture]”
Wucher teaches in paragraph [0044] a circuit of the image capture application 125B (e.g., the image quality circuit 133B, the protocol satisfaction circuit 106B and/or the feedback selection circuit 105B) may result in (or produce an output) that may start/stop a process (e.g., start or stop an image capture process), or receive automated commands of the image capture application 125A. It would have been obvious for a person with ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to have modified Takeshi in view of Wucher to have included the features of “canceling [image capture]” because as such, users often struggle to capture high quality images Wucher [0004]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL E TEITELBAUM, Ph.D. whose telephone number is (571)270-5996. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30AM-5:00PM EST.
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, John Miller can be reached at 571-272-7353. 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.
/MICHAEL E TEITELBAUM, Ph.D./ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2422
Prosecution Insights