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 . Claims 1-12 have been reviewed and are under consideration by this office action.
Notice to Applicant
The following is a Non-Final Office action. Applicant, on 12/01/2025 amended claims. Claims 1-12 are pending in this application and have been rejected below.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 12/01/2025 has been entered.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 04/04/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendments are received and acknowledged.
The 102/103 Rejections are overcome and withdrawn in view of the Patent Board decision on 10/03/2025.
Response to Arguments - 35 USC § 101
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the 35 USC 101 rejections have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive.
Applicant contends that the claims integrate the abstract idea into a practical application further pointing to facial detection/recognition, extracting, and comparing images.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The cited additional elements performing the steps would be no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. See MPEP 2106.05(f) and/or amounts to no more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use – see MPEP 2106.05(h).
Applicant contends that the claims do not recite mere data handling and solves a real world problem and preserves privacy.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The cited additional elements do not improve upon the technology but merely are applied in a general manner as to how these elements typically perform. The additional elements are addressed above and as such do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application nor amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Applicant contends that the facial recognition and extraction through image processing are meaningful components used downstream.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The use of facial detection and biometrics does not improve the technology or technological field and merely invokes the use of a computer as a tool.
Applicant contends that the use of facial recognition to identify operators integrates the abstract idea into a practical application and applies specific image processing technologies to solve a technical problem.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The use of facial recognition to identify users is known technology and does not improve upon the technology or technological field as a whole but merely amounts to no more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use – see MPEP 2106.05(h).
Applicant contends that audit records provide specific technical measures to that are not routine or conventional to protect privacy of users and allows remote evaluation.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claim limitations are analyzed both individually as well as in combination and are determined to be performing the steps would be no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. See MPEP 2106.05(f) and/or amounts to no more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use – see MPEP 2106.05(h). The additional elements do not (1) reflects an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to other technology or technical field; (2) applies or uses the judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition; (3) implements the judicial exception with, or uses the judicial exception with, a particular machine or manufacture integral to the claim; (4) effects a transformation or reduction of an article to a different state or thing; or (5) applies or uses the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception
The 101 rejection is updated and maintained below.
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.
Claims 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Step One – First, pursuant to step 1 in the January 2019 Guidance on 84 Fed. Reg. 53, the claim(s) 1-12 is/are directed to statutory categories.
Step 2A, Prong One – The claims are found to recite limitations that set forth the abstract idea(s), namely in independent claims 1- 12 recite a series of steps for providing an audit record that relates to activities performed by humans
Regarding Claims 1, 11, and 12: (additional elements bolded)
A computer-implemented method (600) for providing an audit record (500) that relates to activities (210, 220) performed by human operators (201) within a manufacturing facility (100) in interaction with technical equipment (300),/ One or more non-transitory, computer-readable mediums, the one or more non-transitory, computer-readable mediums having stored thereon computer-executable instructions that, when executed by at least one processor, causes the at least one processor to:/ An audit computer system (400), comprising one or more processors configured to:
wherein the audit record (500) indicates performance of an activity sequence (210, 220) with a first activity (210) and with a subsequent second activity (220) by either the same human operator (201 A) or by different human operators (201 A, 201 Z), the method (600) comprising:
receiving (610) a series (700) of images (701, 702) that visualize activities (210, 220) by human operators (201), the series (700) with at least a first image (701) of a first activity (210) in interaction with first technical equipment (301A), and a second image (702) of a second activity (220) in interaction with second technical equipment (301B, 301C);
by applying facial detection image-processing to the first image (701) and to the second image (702), detecting facial regions within the first image (701) and within the second image (702);
by applying image-processing to the detected facial regions, separating (620) to the first image (701) and to the second image (702), at least first (701x, 702x) and second (701y, 702y) areas,
wherein the first areas (701x, 702x) comprise biometric image data indicative of a particular human operator (201A) within the set of human operators (201) belonging to the manufacturing facility (100), and
wherein the second areas (701y, 702y) comprise image data indicating the interaction with the technical equipment (301A, 301B, 301C);
by applying facial recognition image-processing to the first area (701x) of the first image (701) and to the first area (702x) of the second image (702), obtaining (630) identifiers (ALPHA, BETA) of human operators (201) among the multiple human operators by comparing the detected facial regions to reference images of operators from a predefined set of operators, the identifiers (ALPHA, BETA) thereby indicating performance of the first activity and of the second activity by particular human operators (ALPHA, BETA);
by applying image-processing to the first area (701x) of the first image (701) and to the first area (702x) of the second image (702), removing (640) biometric image data indicative of particular human operators (ALPHA) from the first area (701x) of the first image (701) and from the first area (702x) of the second image (702) by switching pixels of the first areas to a single color, so that the first area (701x) of the first image (701) is modified to a modified first area (701xx) of the first image (701) and the first area (702x) of the second image (702) is modified to a modified first area (702xx) of the second image (702);
combining (650) the modified first area (701xx) of the first image (700) with the second area (701y) of the first image (701) to a modified first image (701'), and combining the modified first area (702xx) of the second image (702) with the second area (702y) of the second image (702) to a modified second image (702'); and
providing (660) the audit record (500) by storing the modified first image (701'), the modified second image (702') with the respective identifiers (ALPHA, BETA).
As drafted, this is, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, within the Abstract idea groupings of “Mental processes—concepts performed in the human mind” (observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) and “Certain methods of organizing human activity” — commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations) and/or managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions).
Step 2A, Prong Two - This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The independent claims utilize at least a computer-implemented method…,/ One or more non-transitory, computer-readable mediums, the one or more non-transitory, computer-readable mediums having stored thereon computer-executable instructions that, when executed by at least one processor, causes the at least one processor to:/ An audit computer system (400), comprising one or more processors configured to; applying facial detection image-processing to the first image (701) and to the second image (702), detecting facial regions within the first image (701) and within the second image (702); applying image-processing to the detected facial regions, separating (620) to the first image (701) and to the second image (702); applying facial recognition image-processing to the first area (701x) of the first image (701) and to the first area (702x) of the second image (702), obtaining (630) identifiers… by comparing the detected facial regions to reference images; applying image-processing to the first area (701x) of the first image (701) and to the first area (702x) of the second image (702), removing (640) biometric image data indicative of particular human operators… by switching pixels of the first areas to a single color; combining (650) the modified first area (701xx) of the first image (700) with the second area (701y) of the first image (701) to a modified first image (701'), and combining the modified first area (702xx) of the second image (702) with the second area (702y) of the second image (702) to a modified second image (702'); and storing the modified first image. The additional elements are performing the steps would be no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. See MPEP 2106.05(f) and amounts to no more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use – see MPEP 2106.05(h).
Step 2B - The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements are just “apply it” on a computer. (See MPEP 2106.05(f) – Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception – “Thus, for example, claims that amount to nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer do not render an abstract idea eligible.” Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. at 235) and amounts to no more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use – see MPEP 2106.05(h).
Regarding Claim(s) 2, the claim recites the additional element of a RAM of the computer processor.. In Steps 2A-Prong 2 and 2B this element is performing the steps would be no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Regarding Claim(s) 4, the claim recites the additional elements of receiving the first image (701) from a first camera (310-1) and with receiving the second image (702) from a second camera. In Steps 2A-Prong 2 and 2B this element is performing the steps would be no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Regarding Claim(s) 6, the claim recites the additional elements of receive… from an equipment interface. In Steps 2A-Prong 2 and 2B this element is performing the steps would be no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Regarding Claim(s) 7 and 8, the claim recites the additional elements of a production management system. In Steps 2A-Prong 2 and 2B this element is performing the steps would be no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Regarding Claim(s) 3, 5, and 9-10 the claim further narrows the abstract idea or recite additional elements previously rejected in the independent claims.
Accordingly, the claim fails to recite any improvements to another technology or technical field, improvements to the functioning of the computer itself, use of a particular machine, effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, adding unconventional steps that confine the claim to a particular useful application, and/or meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular environment. See 84 Fed. Reg. 55. Viewed individually or as a whole, these additional claim element(s) do not provide meaningful limitation(s) to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claim(s) amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JEREMY L GUNN whose telephone number is (571)270-1728. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 6:30-4:30.
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, Jerry O'Connor can be reached at (571) 272-6787. 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.
/JEREMY L GUNN/Examiner, Art Unit 3624