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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment and written response filed 01/16/2026 have been entered and considered.
Claims 2-4 were cancelled.
Claim 5-11 were added.
Claim 1 was amended.
Claims 1 and 5-11 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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.
Claims 1 and 5-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shi et al (“Shi” hereinafter, CN. 109472911 A1, a copy of translation is attached herein) in view of Liu et al (“Liu” hereinafter, CN 110942545 A, a copy of translation is attached herein).
As per claim 1, Shi discloses a system to match video still frames with highest detection scores with identity indicia and display to a security operator console (Shi teaches a system for comparing the a face image with the best quality captured by a camera and compared with the face image scanned from a passport for authentication, see abstract) comprises: a credential reader to read a plurality of credential associated with a portal within a range of time (page 8: a near field communication device or card reader reads the identity of the passenger to obtain second face image); a processor (see page 18 for CPU processor) executing instructions to: receive a video stream from a camera associated with a portal (page 9: a field camera is used to capture a video stream of passenger faces through human face detection), the video stream containing a sequence of frames; determine a face determination score for each frame of the sequence of frames; determining a best quality frame for each face in the plurality of faces (page 9: as explained above the field camera is able to capture a video stream of the passenger’s face for 3 seconds and obtained the best quality of the passenger image for later comparison, which implies the image with best quality scores the highest in the face detection from the images of 3 second duration); determine a time stamp corresponding to the best quality frame (the examiner notes every video frame is inherently time stamped during capturing, and the best quality face image includes a time stamp information); determine a plurality of credential corresponding to a plurality of persons in a vicinity of the portal (page 9: as explained above, the near field communication device or card reader is deployed near at the airport entrance or other security clearance area); determine a match between a person corresponding to the best quality frame and a person corresponding to a credential of the plurality of credentials (page 9: figure 3: the best quality face image captured by the field camera is compared with face image obtained from the passenger credential); a user console executing instructions to: display one or more frames and identify information of the person corresponding to the best quality frame based on the match (page 9: the verification/comparison results are displayed on a computer terminal so the airport worker may be able to perform manual verification).
Shi teaches detecting a human face from video images captured by a field camera through human face detection. However, Shi does not explicitly teach the human face detection is performed from video images containing a plurality of faces of person.
Liu teaches a face recognition system for detecting a plurality of human faces from a stream of video frames near a staff entrance (abstract and section 2. Multi-face recognition access).
Shi and Liu are combinable because they are from the same field of endeavor, ie. facial detection for security verification.
At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify Shi in light of Liu’s teaching to detect human faces from images of a plurality of people. One would be motivated to do so because it would allow the system to detect multiple faces at a large people flow area such as airport as suggested in Shi.
As per claim 5 Shi discloses wherein the processor executes instructions to: identify a leading frame preceding the best quality frame and a succeeding frame corresponding to the best quality frame, wherein the leading frame, the best quality frame and the succeeding frame form a video clip; determine a match between the credential and any frame in the video clip (as explained above, the best quality image frame is selected from a 3-second video duration, which includes at least 90 frames based on 30 frames/second standard video compression format, thus the best quality image frame would have a leading frame and a succeeding frame).
As per claim 6, Shi teaches wherein the processor executes instructions to: determine a first time stamp associated with the leading frame and a second timestamp associated with the succeeding frame; and determine a match between the credential and a selected frame in the video clip based on a time stamp for the selected frame being between the first time stamp and the second time stamp (as explained above, time stamping a video frame is a standard practice in the field of video capturing, and Shi teaches capturing a video stream of 3 seconds, which includes at least 90 frames with a standard of 30 frames per second. Shi teaches selecting the best quality image with human face for verification, and the frame is selected among these 90 frames).
As per claim 7, Shi teaches wherein each credential is associated with a mobile authentication device (as explained above, the face image from the credentials are from devices with near field communication device or passport card/ID, which are mobile devices).
As per claim 8, see explanation in claim 1 above.
As per claim 9, see explanation in claim 5 above.
As per claim 10, see explanation in claim 6 above.
As per claim 11, see explanation in claim 7 above.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TOM Y LU whose telephone number is (571)272-7393. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9AM - 5PM.
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, Matthew Bella can be reached at (571) 272 - 7778. 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.
/TOM Y LU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2667
Prosecution Insights