Apple may finally be ready to introduce its Touch ID fingerprint sensor to the MacBook — more than two years after it made its first appearance on the iPhone.
A new patent published today describes “Finger sensing apparatus using hybrid matching and associated methods,” and depicts an embedded Touch ID sensor on a future MacBook, although it also leaves to the door open for the same technology to be featured on an iMac keyboard.
The biometric technology has been particularly successful on Apple’s iOS devices, most recently thanks to Apple Pay, which uses Touch ID for payment authentication. While a Mac obviously wouldn’t carry this functionality, it would certainly be a neat feature that many users would doubtless appreciate.
Apple actually filed the paperwork for a Mac-based Touch ID way back in September 2007, although it is only now that the patent has been published.
The timing is certainly convenient for Apple. Last week Microsoft showed off its new Surface Pro 4, which blurs the line between tablet and laptop, and incorporates a fingerprint sensor. With Microsoft throwing down the gauntlet it makes perfect sense that Apple would want to follow suit as quickly as possible.
In the meantime, Mac users who are eager to use fingerprint scanning to unlock their computers can use third-party apps such as FingerKey, which links your iPhone to your Mac via Bluetooth 4.0. It’s not such an intuitive solution as today’s patent, but if you really can’t wait…
Source: USPTO
Via: Patently Apple
Luke Dormehl is a U.K.-based journalist and author, with a background working in documentary film for Channel 4 and the BBC. He is the author of The Apple Revolution and The Formula: How Algorithms Solve All Our Problems … and Create More, both published by Penguin/Random House. His tech writing has also appeared in Wired, Fast Company, Techmeme and other publications.
6 responses to “Apple finally working to bring Touch ID to MacBooks”
No, no, no, no, NO!
You guys read this patent completely WRONG. It’s NOT a patent about putting fingerprint sensor on portable devices, it’s a patent about how to encrypt and match the fingerprint sensor data, for better security and privacy. Figures, I repeat, EVERY FIGURES on patent documents, are drawn by law firms, NOT by the engineer.
Never, never, NEVER, EVER inspect a patent document by it’s drawings. The CLAIM section is the only thing you should read first.
“That which is claimed is:
1. A finger sensing apparatus comprising: a finger sensor comprising an integrated circuit (IC) substrate, an array of finger sensing elements on said IC substrate, and match circuitry on said IC substrate for performing final finger matching; and a host platform cooperating with said array of finger sensing elements for performing at least one finger prematch function; said finger sensor and said host platform implementing at least one security function there between.”
It also specially mentions laptop and desktop computers.
I don’t see how this is incorrect?
Did you see the word ‘laptop’ or ‘desktop’ in primary claims ? The only word you see here is “host platform”, which is an ambiguous term. When we’re making patent claims, we’ll avoid to specify a dedicated target in claims. If Apple claims “smart phones” or “mobile devices” here, they’ll lose the coverage over desktops, vehicles, set-top box, kiosk, or workstations. This is why they have to use the ambiguous term.
However, if you use an ambiguous term in the claim, you MUST specify what it is in the patent body, or else you’ll fail to meet the ‘public exposure’ requirement of a patent. The “laptop and desktop” you said is called “exploit examples” in a patent document, which explains when and where the method mentioned in claims can be applied. In this patent, the exploit examples is given as a explanation of the terms “host platform”.
In other word, “laptop and desktop” is only a commonly used approach for extending the protection coverage of this patent. It gives NO hints at all about how Apple would use this patent.
Furthermore, exploit examples like this is typically added by layers, not engineers. We engineers all hate the ‘patent language’, and it’s too darn hard for us to write a qualified patent document. Coding a web browser is even easier. I personally hold 40 patents all over the world, mostly in United State, and I’m too darn well know the game they’re playing.
We shall further discuss the technical content of this patent.
The claim you quoted is claim 1. But it’s not a complete statement. Claim 1 only draw a overall plot about what this invention is (a finger sensor that is composed by a lot of ICs), where it can be used (“host platform” as explained) and what it can do (“finder prematch function”).
Claim 2 to 10, which are called ‘dependent claims’, describe the detailed functionality of terms in claim 1. For example the claim 6:
“The finger sensing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein said finger sensor further comprises: a random number generator (RNG) on said IC substrate; a hash engine on said IC substrate and cooperating with said RNG for generating at least one security key; and a key cache on said IC substrate for storing the at least one security key therein.”
It clearly indicate several things:
1. The captured fingerprint date (called “feature” in image processing/matching) is encrypted, as a “security function”.
2. The encryption algorithm uses security key which is generated with hash function based on random number.
3. The security key is generated and stored locally on the “ICs” of that “finger sensor”.
Do you understand now ? This patent is all about “HOWTO: safely store the fingerprint features”. We call patents like this “apparatus and method”, because they’re indeed “methods” as implied by their titles.
And third, I shall teach you one more important thing: the difference of “Patent” and “Patent Application”.
I don’t know if you have ever read the patent application data. Take a look at the last line: “Filed: September 7, 2007”. Read it again, 2007.
Yes, it’s a patent FILED in 2007, that’s EIGHT years ago.
In other word, this technique is, sorry, “WAS”, this technique was already applied to Apple’s product you’re using everyday: Touch ID.
I know what you want to say. Yes, USPTO took eight years to examine this patent application. Yes Apple waited eight years to get this patent approved. And yes, patents like this typically took THAT long. My personal record is 7 year and 5 months, which is a low power radio frequency protocol patent. This patent had broken my own record I must say.
Do you know what’s wrong with your first inspection now ?
Thanks for the detailed response. Are you by any chance Richard Liu of JD.com?