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
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in CN on 14 October 2024. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the CN202411433534.3 application as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Objections
Claims 13 and 16-17 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 13 recites “the liveness detection circuit” which lacks antecedent basis in the claim. The limitation should be changed to “a liveness detection circuit.”
Claims 16 and 17 each recite “The liveness detection method according to claim 14” however, claim 14 is a biometric recognition device, i.e. claim 14 is not a method claim.
Appropriate correction is required.
Applicant is advised that should claims 16 be found allowable, claim 19 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
Claim 20 is objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate of claim 17. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
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 1-2 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Niinuma et al. (US 2009/0232368) in view of Jeon et al. (KR 2019/0091705 A).
Regarding claim 1, Niinuma et al. disclose a liveness detection circuit (Figure 3), comprising:
a signal generation module (Figure 3, the signal generation module is whatever applies Vi to 20/22, i.e. clearly there has to be a generation module or else Vi would not be generated.), and
a detection module (Figure 3, the detection module is 16/18, 24/26 and Figure 27.),
the signal generation module configured to generate a first voltage signal (Figure 3, Vi) and
the detection module configured to detect a second voltage signal generated when an object to be detected approaches the detection module, based on the first voltage signal (Figure 3 shows that Vo is detected when an object 14 approaches, based on Vi.), and
judge whether the object to be detected is alive based on the first voltage signal and the second voltage signal (Paragraph [0059].).
Niinuma et al. fail to teach of the detection module having an induction assembly.
Jeon et al. disclose wherein a detection module with an induction assembly (Figures 1-2, 6(a) and 8(a), and see page 19 of the provided document, lines 10-14 and page 17 of the provided document, lines 32-43.).
Hence the prior art includes each element claimed although not necessarily in a single prior art reference, with the only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art being the lack of the actual combination of the elements in a single prior art reference. In combination Niinuma et al. performs the same function as it does separately of determining the liveness of a finger, and Jeon et al. performs the same function as it does separately of detecting using an induction coil.
Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, and that in combination, each element merely performed the same function as it does separately. The results of the combination would have been predictable and resulted in performing the finger detection using an induction coil.
Therefore, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 2, Niinuma et al. and Jeon et al. disclose the liveness detection circuit according to claim 1, wherein the induction assembly comprises an induction coil, wherein impedance of the induction coil changes when the object to be detected approaches (Jeon et al.: Figures 6(a) and 8(a), and see page 19 of the provided document, lines 10-14 and page 17 of the provided document, lines 32-43.).
Regarding claim 11, this claim is rejected under the same rationale as claim 1.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Niinuma et al. (US 2009/0232368) in view of Jeon et al. (KR 2019/0091705 A) and further in view of Du (US 2024/0021008).
Regarding claim 10, Niinuma et al. and Jeon et al. disclose the liveness detection circuit according to claim 1.
Niinuma et al. and Jeon et al. fail to teach wherein the signal generation module comprises a frequency-adjustable sine wave generator configured to output a fixed-frequency sine wave or a variable-frequency sine wave.
Du discloses wherein a signal generation module comprises a frequency-adjustable sine wave generator configured to output a fixed-frequency sine wave or a variable-frequency sine wave (Figure 3, 210 is a signal generation module that uses a frequency-adjustable sine wave generator, see paragraphs [0089]-[0091], where the sine wave must be either fixed or variable, i.e. must be one or the other.).
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 sine wave generator teachings of Du in the liveness detection circuit taught by the combination of Niinuma et al. and Jeon et al. The motivation to combine would have been in order to provide a relatively simple circuit structure, a relatively small circuit area and a relatively low manufacturing cost (See the last sentence of paragraph [0008] of Du.).
Claims 14-16 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Niinuma et al. (US 2009/0232368) in view of Jeon et al. (KR 2019/0091705 A) and further in view of Smith (US 6,965,685).
Regarding claim 14, please refer to the rejection of claim 1, and furthermore Niinuma et al. and Jeon et al. disclose a biometric recognition device, comprising: the liveness detection circuit (Niinuma et al.: Figures 3 and 27, and Figures 29-31, for example, show devices.).
Niinuma et al. and Jeon et al. fail to explicitly teach the biometric recognition device comprising a biometric sensing chip, the biometric sensing chip configured to sense an object to be detected through a chip sensing area and judge whether biological characteristics carried by the object to be detected matches preset biological characteristics.
Smith discloses a biometric recognition device (Figure 3) comprising a biometric sensing chip (Figure 3, 40 is a biometric sensing chip.), the biometric sensing chip configured to sense an object to be detected through a chip sensing area (Figure 3, 42 is a chip sensing area.) and judge whether biological characteristics carried by the object to be detected matches preset biological characteristics (Column 3, lines 12-29).
Hence the prior art includes each element claimed although not necessarily in a single prior art reference, with the only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art being the lack of the actual combination of the elements in a single prior art reference. In combination, the combination of Niinuma et al. and Jeon et al. performs the same function as it does separately of providing a liveness detection circuit, and Smith performs the same function as it does separately of providing a biometric sensing chip.
Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, and that in combination, each element merely performed the same function as it does separately. The results of the combination would have been predictable and resulted in biometric recognition device comprising the liveness detection circuit and the biometric sensing chip.
Therefore, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 15, Niinuma et al., Jeon et al. and Smith disclose the biometric recognition device according to claim 14, wherein the biometric sensing chip and an induction coil in the liveness detection circuit are disposed horizontally (Since no frame of reference is given in the claims as to what the chip and coil are “disposed horizontally” with respect to, then they are considered to be “disposed horizontally.”).
Regarding claim 16, Niinuma et al., Jeon et al. and Smith disclose the liveness detection method according to claim 14, wherein the induction assembly comprises an induction coil, wherein an inductive impedance of the induction coil changes when the object to be detected approaches (Jeon et al.: Figures 1-2, 6(a) and 8(a), and see page 19 of the provided document, lines 10-14 and page 17 of the provided document, lines 32-43.).
Regarding claim 19, this claim is rejected for the same reasons as claim 16.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-9, 12-13, 17-18 and 20 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The primary reasons for indicating allowable subject matter in claim 3 is the inclusion of the limitations reciting “…wherein an output end of the signal generation module is connected to a first end of the induction coil and a first input end of the detection and amplifier unit, a second input end of the detection and amplifier unit is grounded, a second end of the induction coil is connected to an output end of the detection and amplifier unit, and the output end of the detection and amplifier unit is connected to the processing unit, wherein the detection and amplifier unit is configured to detect and amplify a voltage across the induction coil and output the second voltage signal, and the processing unit is configured to judge whether the object to be detected is alive based on the first voltage signal and the second voltage signal, and wherein the induction coil is configured to generate an excitation current, based on the first voltage signal, wherein the generated excitation current is an alternating current” which, in combination with the other recited features, is not taught and/or suggested either singularly or in combination within the prior art.
While the closest prior art (Niinuma et al. (US 2009/0232368); Jeon et al. (KR 2019/0091705 A); Du (US 2024/0021008); Smith (US 6,965,685)) disclose a detection module and an induction assembly comprising an induction coil (Refer to the rejections above), the closest prior art fails to teach the specifically claimed interconnections and details as recited in claim 3 and highlighted above.
Claims 4-9 are objected to due to their dependency from claim 3.
The primary reasons for indicating allowable subject matter in claim 12 is the inclusion of the limitations reciting “wherein generating, by a signal generation module, a first voltage signal comprises: generating, by the signal generation module, a first voltage signal characterized by a variable-frequency sine wave; judging, by the detection module, whether the object to be detected is alive based on the first voltage signal, wherein the second voltage signal comprises: detecting, by the detection module, a peak value of the second voltage signal output by the induction assembly based on the first voltage signal; performing analog-to-digital conversion on the detected peak value; and determining a maximum value of the peak value as the second voltage signal based on an analog-to-digital conversion result; calculating, by the detection module, a first impedance of the induction assembly based on the second voltage signal and the first voltage signal corresponding to the maximum value of the peak value; and judging, by the detection module, whether the object to be detected is alive based on the first impedance of the induction assembly and a first preset impedance” which, in combination with the other recited features, is not taught and/or suggested either singularly or in combination within the prior art.
The primary reasons for indicating allowable subject matter in claim 13 is the inclusion of the limitations reciting “wherein the generating, by a signal generation module, a first voltage signal comprises: generating, by the signal generation module, a first voltage signal characterized as a fixed-frequency sine wave; judging, by the detection module, whether the object to be detected is alive based on the first voltage signal and the second voltage signal comprises: detecting, by the detection module, a peak value of the second voltage signal output by the induction assembly based on the first voltage signal; performing analog-to-digital conversion on the peak value to obtain the second voltage signal; calculating, by the detection module, a second impedance of the induction assembly based on the second voltage signal and the first voltage signal corresponding to the peak value; and judging, by the detection module, whether the object to be detected is alive based on the second impedance of the induction assembly and a second preset impedance” which, in combination with the other recited features, is not taught and/or suggested either singularly or in combination within the prior art.
Claim 17 is objected to for the same reasons as claim 3.
Claim 18 is objected to due to its dependency from claim 17.
Claim 20 is objected to for the same reasons as claim 3.
Conclusion
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
2 June 2026
Prosecution Insights