DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . The Amendment filed 20 June 2025 (hereinafter “the Amendment”) has been entered and considered. Claims 1 and 9 have been amended. Claims 1-16, all the claims pending in the application, are rejected. All new grounds of rejection set forth in the present action were necessitated by Applicant’s claim amendments; accordingly, this action is made final.
Response to Amendment
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
As an initial matter, the Examiner notes that many of the Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejections under 35 USC 101 rely on the assertion that the invention executes a “machine-learning model” (pages 8-11 of the Amendment). Importantly, however, the claims are silent about any such model. Indeed, “machine learning” is nowhere to be found in the claims. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Turning to Applicant’s specific arguments:
On pages 8-9 of the Amendment, Applicant argues that the claims do not recite a judicial exception. In support of this argument, Applicant contends that the “claim recites a specific technical process executing a machine-learning model to dynamically perform facial recognition and behavior prediction based, at least in part, on a determined pattern of user, which cannot be practically performed in the human mind”. The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
As discussed above, the claim does not recite a machine learning model, as Applicant contends. Furthermore, according to MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III), “examples of mental processes include observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions”. The “facial recognition”, “behavior prediction” and “determined pattern” noted by Applicant are observations or evaluations that a human can perform. That is, these aspects of the claim are mental processes consistent with the examples set forth in the MPEP. Accordingly, the Applicant’s arguments are not found persuasive. The claims clearly do recite mental processes.
On pages 9-10 of the Amendment, Applicant contends that the independent claims integrate the judicial exception into a practical application since the claimed subject matter allegedly improves facial recognition and behavior prediction through machine learning. In support of this assertion, Applicant submits that “the claimed system solves the technical problem of dynamic facial recognition and behavior prediction using a machine-learning model”. The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Once again, the claims are silent about any “machine-learning model”. Furthermore, the “facial recognition” and “behavior prediction” are not improvements to the mental process; rather, they comprise the mental process itself. A judicial exception cannot integrate itself into a practical application; only additional elements can (See MPEP 2106.04(d): “Examiners evaluate integration into a practical application by: (1) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception(s); and (2) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether they integrate the exception into a practical application”; emphasis added; see also flowchart in MPEP 2106). Since the claims do not recite any additional elements beyond the mental process that improves any technology or technical field, the Examiner maintains that the claims do not integrate the mental process into a practical application.
On page 10 of the Amendment, Applicant argues that the claims amount to significantly more since “executing a machine-learning model, dynamic facial recognition and behavior prediction based, at least in part, on determined patterns, is neither routine nor conventional” and further alleging that “the Specification describes a non-generic implementation” (emphasis added).
When evaluating eligibility under 35 USC 101, the MPEP requires the “broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) of the claim” be considered in light of the specification (MPEP 2106(II)). That is, the description of the invention in the specification is not read into the claims during the analysis, as Applicant appears to argue.
Furthermore, as noted above, the claim is silent about any “machine-learning model”. The “dynamic facial recognition” and “behavior prediction” are not non-conventional elements that constitute significantly more than the mental process; rather they comprise the mental process itself. A judicial exception cannot be significantly more than itself; only additional elements can be significantly more than the judicial exception (See MPEP 2106.05(I): “Evaluating additional elements to determine whether they amount to an inventive concept requires considering them both individually and in combination to ensure that they amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself”; emphasis added; see also flowchart in MPEP 2106). Since the claims do not recite any additional elements that constitute significantly more, the Examiner maintains that evaluation of Step 2B does not result in a conclusion of eligibility of the claims.
On pages 10-12 of the Amendment, Applicant argues that the Examiner’s analysis is incomplete. In support of this argument, Applicant asserts that the rejection “fails to consider the claim as a whole” and ignores “the technical context of dynamic facial recognition and behavior prediction based, at least in part, on determined patterns and the specific machine-learning implementation”. The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Again, the claim is silent about any “specific machine-learning implementation”. Further, the Examiner notes that the rejection does indeed consider the claim as a whole (See page 5 of the previous Office Action: “Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually”). The “dynamic facial recognition” and “behavior prediction” are part of the mental process since they can be performed by a human. Thus, the Examiner maintains that the rejection does indeed evaluate the claim holistically, contrary to Applicant’s assertions.
In further support of the argument that the Examiner’s analysis is incomplete, Applicant argues that the Examiner does not provide evidence that the claimed combination is well-understood, routine, or conventional, as allegedly required under Step 2B, citing MPEP 2106.05.
As discussed above, only additional elements are evaluated under Step 2B, not the elements of the claim directed to the judicial exception itself. The elements in the claim noted by Applicant are all part of the mental process for the reasons discussed above. Furthermore, assuming arguendo that these claim elements were indeed additional elements, the Examiner respectfully submits that Applicant has mischaracterized the cited section MPEP 2106.05. According to MPEP 2106.05:
PNG
media_image1.png
412
772
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Clearly, the evaluation of whether additional elements are well-understood, routine, and conventional is only one method of evaluating whether the additional element recites significantly more. The Examiner’s analysis under Step 2B relied on other considerations with respect to the additional elements in the claim, including method iii - insignificant extra-solution activity and i – implementation on a computer (See pages 5-6 of the previous Office Action and the rejection below).
For the foregoing reasons, the Examiner submits that the rejection is entirely consistent with the requirements of MPEP 2106, contrary to Applicant’s assertions.
In view of the above, the rejections under 35 USC 101 are maintained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Applicant’s arguments on pages 12-13 of the Amendment regarding the rejections under 35 USC 112 are found persuasive. Accordingly, the previously-applied rejections under this heading are withdrawn. However, Applicant’s claim amendments raise new issues under 35 USC 112, as detailed below.
Prior Art Rejections
In view of the amendments to independent claims 1 and 9, the previously-applied prior art rejections are withdrawn. Applicant’s arguments are rendered moot in view of the new grounds of rejection set forth below.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-8 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 has been amended to recite “base, at least in part, on…” which should be amended to recite “based, at least in part, on…” for clarity.
Claims 2-8 are objected to by virtue of their dependency on claim 1.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
35 U.S.C. 101 requires that a claimed invention must fall within one of the four eligible categories of invention (i.e. process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter) and must not be directed to subject matter encompassing a judicially recognized exception as interpreted by the courts. MPEP 2106. Three categories of subject matter are found to be judicially recognized exceptions to 35 U.S.C. § 101 (i.e. patent ineligible) (1) laws of nature, (2) physical phenomena, and (3) abstract ideas. MPEP 2106(II). To be patent-eligible, a claim directed to a judicial exception must as whole be integrated into a practical application or directed to significantly more than the exception itself (MPEP 2106). Hence, the claim must describe a process or product that applies the exception in a meaningful way, such that it is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. Id
Claims 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea) without integration into a practical application or recitation of significantly more.
In the analysis below, the method of independent claim 1 is considered representative of independent claims 1 and 9 since all of the independent claims recite identical steps despite being directed to different statutory matter. Furthermore, each of independent claims 1 and 9 are directed to one of the four statutory categories of eligible subject matter; thus, the claims pass Step 1 of the Subject Matter Eligibility Test (See flowchart in MPEP 2106).
Step 2A, prong 1 analysis
The independent claims are directed to comparing the digital image of the first person and the digital image of the second person; determining if the first person and the second person is substantially the same person utilizing facial recognition; if it is determined that the first person and the second person are substantially the same person, determining a first activity associated with the received digital image of the first person; determining a second activity associated with the received digital image of the second person; based, at least in part, on the determined second activity, determining a pattern; and determining a subsequent activity of the second person based, at least in part, on the determined pattern.
Each of the above steps can be performed mentally. In particular, a human receiving two images of two people can visually observe and recognize whether the images include the same person. Importantly, “facial recognition” describes this visual observation process. The human can also visually recognize what the person is doing in each of the images and evaluate that the actions in the respective images constitutes a pattern of behavior. The human can then mentally predict future behavior of the person in the images based on the observed pattern of behavior. As such, the description in independent claims 1 and 9 is an abstract idea – namely, a mental process. Accordingly, the analysis under prong one of step 2A of the Subject Matter Eligibility Test does not result in a conclusion of eligibility (See flowchart in MPEP 2106).
Additional elements
The additional elements recited in each of the independent claims are the steps of
receiving a digital image of a first person and receiving a digital image of a second person and causing to restrict the determined subsequent activity based, at least in part, on the determined pattern. Independent claim 1 further includes the additional element of performing the claimed steps by a processor. Independent claim 9 includes the additional elements of a system comprising: a processor; a pattern determination module (PDM) communicatively coupled to the processor; and a non-transitory machine readable medium communicatively coupled to the PDM having stored therein a plurality of instructions, which, when executed by the processor, operatively enable a computing device to perform the claimed steps.
Step 2A, prong 2 analysis
The above-identified additional elements do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The steps of receiving a digital image of a first person and receiving a digital image of a second person are data-gathering steps. The step of causing to restrict the determined subsequent activity based, at least in part, on the determined pattern is merely post-solution activity. Such data-gathering and post-solution activity amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity which does not integrate the claimed mental process into a practical application (See MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Each of the other additional elements (processor, system, pattern determination module, non-transitory machine readable medium, computing device) amounts to merely using a computer as a tool to perform the claimed mental process. Implementing an abstract idea on a computer does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Moreover, the additional elements of the claims do not recite an improvement in the functioning of a computer or other technology or technical field, the claimed steps are not performed using a particular machine, the claimed steps do not effect a transformation, and the claims do not apply the judicial exception in any meaningful way beyond generically linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment (See MPEP 2106.04(d)). Therefore, the analysis under prong two of step 2A of the Subject Matter Eligibility Test does not result in a conclusion of eligibility (See flowchart in MPEP 2106).
Step 2B
Finally, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As noted above, the steps of receiving a digital image of a first person and receiving a digital image of a second person are data-gathering steps. The step of causing to restrict the determined subsequent activity based, at least in part, on the determined pattern is merely post-solution activity. Such data-gathering and post-solution activity amount to insignificant extra-solution activity which does not constitute significantly more than the claimed mental process (See MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Each of the other additional elements (processor, system, pattern determination module, non-transitory machine readable medium, computing device) are generic computer features which perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine, and conventional and do not amount to more than implementing the abstract idea with a computerized system. Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea).
Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation, and mere implementation on a generic computer does not add significantly more to the claims. Accordingly, the analysis under step 2B of the Subject Matter Eligibility Test does not result in a conclusion of eligibility (See flowchart in MPEP 2106).
For all of the foregoing reasons, independent claims 1 and 9 do not recite eligible subject matter under 35 USC 101.
Dependent claims 2-8 are dependent on independent claim 1 and therefore include all of the limitations of claim 1. Dependent claims 10-16 are dependent on independent claim 9 and therefore include all of the limitations of claim 9. Therefore, claims 2-8 and 10-16 recite the same abstract idea of a mental process.
Claims 2 and 10 each recites, in some variation, wherein determining if the first person and the second person is substantially the same person comprises facial recognition. Since facial recognition is a visual evaluation, this limitation recites the same mental process as the independent claims. Claims 2 and 10 do not recite any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or add significantly more.
Claims 3 and 11 each recites, in some variation, wherein determining the second activity associated with the received digital image of the second person comprises capturing and processing movements of at least one of the first person's limbs, torso, head, or eyes. The claimed processing of movements can be evaluated visually. In particular, a human can observationally recognize movements in a series of images. Thus, this step is part of the mental process. The claimed capturing is a data gathering step that amounts to insignificant pre-solution activity which does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or constitute significantly more than the claimed mental process (See MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Claims 4 and 12 each recites, in some variation, wherein determining the pattern comprises determining the pattern based, at least in part, on dynamical systems. The broadest reasonable interpretation of the claimed “dynamical systems” is a time-based pattern. Such a time-based pattern is observable by a human. Thus, these claims simply further recite the mental process.
Claims 5 and 13 each recites, in some variation, wherein determining the subsequent plurality of activities of the second person based comprises directional processing. A human can visually observe the direction of movement of the person in the image. Therefore, these claims simply further recite the mental process.
Claims 6 and 14 each recites, in some variation, wherein determining if the first person and the second person is substantially the same person comprises electronically searching a social media database. Searching a given database can be performed visually by a human. Accordingly, this aspect of these claims simply further recite the mental process. The electronic aspect of searching amounts to performing the mental process using a computer as a tool which neither integrates the mental processing into a practical application nor adds significantly more (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Claims 7 and 15 each recites, in some variation, wherein searching the social media database comprises determining information of the first person and the second person indirectly. A human can visually recognize a social media user’s post wishing the person in the images “Happy Birthday” to indirectly determine the person’s age. Thus, these claims simply further recite the mental process.
Claims 8 and 16 each recites, in some variation, wherein determining the pattern comprises receiving a subsequent plurality of images of the second person. This limitation is an additional element that merely amounts to data-gathering which is insignificant pre-solution activity which does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or constitute significantly more than the claimed mental process (See MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Independent claims 1 and 9 have been amended to require a “processor” or “computing device” to “cause to restrict the determined subsequent activity based, at least in part, on the determined pattern”. Applicant alleges that these amendments are supported by [0013] and [0020] of the publication of the subject application (page 7 of the Amendment). The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
At best, the portions cited by the Applicant disclose that “personnel of the casino may be alerted to the fact that the former employee is in a restricted/prohibited area, and the casino personnel may take appropriate steps to remedy the situation”. Notably, it is the casino personnel that may perform activity restriction, not the processor/computing device that issues the alert.
Although other portions of the specification disclose “restricting former employees from being within certain areas” ([0021] of the publication of the subject application), the specification is silent about such restriction being performed by a processor or computing device, as claimed. Rather, the processor or computing device appears to generate an alert to personnel who can then perform the restriction. Accordingly, the claimed subject matter is not described in the specification in a way that reasonably conveys that the inventor or joint inventor had possession of the claimed invention at the time of filing.
Claims 2-8 are rejected by virtue of their dependency on claim 1.
Claims 10-16 are rejected by virtue of their dependency on claim 9.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(d)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 2 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 2 recites “wherein determining if the first person and the second person is substantially the same person comprises facial recognition”. However, independent claim 1 (from which claim 2 depends) has been amended to recite “determining, by the processor, if the first person and the second person is substantially the same person utilizing facial recognition”. Thus, claim 2 does not further limit the subject matter of claim 1 and is therefore an improper dependent claim.
Claim 10 recites “wherein when executed by the processor, further operatively enable the computing device to utilize facial recognition”. However, independent claim 9 (from which claim 10 depends) has been amended to recite “when executed by the processor, further operatively enable the computing device to determine if the first person and the second person is substantially the same person utilizing facial recognition”. Thus, claim 10 does not further limit the subject matter of claim 9 and is therefore an improper dependent claim.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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 1-5, 8-13 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2016/0371547 to Valentino et al. (hereinafter “Valentino”) in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2013/0266181 to Brewer et al. (hereinafter “Brewer”) and further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0228494 to Stasi et al. (hereinafter “Stasi”).
As to independent claim 1, Valentino discloses a method caused by a processor (Abstract and [0003] discloses that Valentino is directed to analyzing surveillance data to identify subjects using facial data, identify patterns of behavior of the subject, and predict future behaviors of the subjects; [0068] discloses that the method is performed by “one or more processors”), the method comprising: receiving, by the processor, a digital image of a first person ([0035-0043] discloses a Surveillance Data Analysis Module SDAM which receives “images of subject 112” from camera 102); receiving, by the processor, a digital image of a second person ([0035-0039, 0044-0047] discloses that the SDAM receives “images of subject 112” from a different “camera 212 disposed in a different geographical location from camera 102”); determining, by the processor, if the first person and the second person is substantially the same person ([0041] discloses that “facial recognition” is performed to “identify the subject 112” in the first images from camera 102 and that “SDAM 104 may generate a unique identifier (UID) 330 and associate UID 330 with subject 112”; [0046-0047] discloses that analytics such as facial recognition are similarly performed on the second images from camera 212 to “identify subject 112” and “associate subject 112 with UID 330”; here, the SDAM has determined that the subject 112 in the images captured by the respective cameras 102 and 212 are the same person by virtue of associating that person 112 with the same unique identifier UID 330); if it is determined that the first person and the second person are substantially the same person, determining, by the processor, a first activity associated with the received digital image of the first person; determining, by the processor, a second activity associated with the received digital image of the second person ([0035-0043] discloses that behavior data 116 of the subject 112 in the images captured by camera 102 is associated with the subject 112 and UID 330; [0035-0039, 0044-0047] discloses that behavior data 416 of the subject 112 in the images captured by the other camera 212 is also associated with the subject 112 and UID 330; notably, the respective behavior data 116 and 416 is associated with the unique identifier UID 330 of the subject 112 if the subject 112 is common to both sets of images from cameras 102 and 212); based, at least in part, on the determined second activity, determining, by the processor, a pattern ([0047] discloses that the SDAM performs analytics to “identify one or more patterns of behavior corresponding to subject 112”; for example the behavior pattern to be associated with the subject 112 may include “purchasing shoes 412” (second activity identified in the second camera) after “purchasing purse 314 on a rainy day” (first activity identified in the first camera); determining, by the processor, a subsequent activity of the second person based, at least in part, on the determined pattern ([0039, 0047-0051] discloses that the “SDAM may predict a future behavior based, at least in part, on surveillance data 230 based, at least in part, on the identified pattern of behavior and may take an action based, at least in part, on the prediction”).
Valentino does not expressly disclose comparing the digital image of the first person and the digital image of the second person such that the determination of whether the first and second persons are the same person is made utilizing facial recognition. Valentino discloses the desire for “a deterrent to illegal activities” and thus contemplates restricting activities if they are illegal ([0025]). However, Valentino does not expressly disclose such restriction. That is, Valentino does not expressly disclose causing, by the processor, to restrict the determined subsequent activity based, at least in part, on the determined pattern.
Brewer, like Valentino, is directed to tracking a target imaged by separate cameras (e.g., 122, 124, and 126 of Fig. 1) in different locations using facial recognition for the purpose of surveilling the persons actions (Abstract and [0022-0026]). Brewer discloses receiving a digital image of a first person (Step 401 of Fig. 4: “first face image of first person”), receiving a digital image of a second person (Step 404 of Fig. 4 and [0067]: “subsequent face image (e.g., a second face image) is subsequently captured”), comparing the digital image of the first person and the digital image of the second person (Step 405 of Fig. 4 and [0067]: “determine whether the second image represents the first person’s face” by using “face recognition”, for example, by performing “a comparison using the actual images”), determining if the first person and the second person is substantially the same person utilizing facial recognition (Step 405 of Fig. 4 and [0067]: “is subsequent face same person as first face?” by using “face recognition”), if it is determined that the first person and the second person is substantially the same person, determining a first activity associated with the received digital image of the first person, determine a second activity associated with the received digital image of the second person (“yes” branch from Step 405 to Step 406 of Fig. 4: “tracking confirmation”, wherein the tracking comprises recording the “action” of each person in a log; see [0052-0058]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Valentino to perform the facial recognition by directly comparing the first and second images to determine whether they include the same person, as taught by Brewer, to arrive at the claimed invention discussed above. Such a modification is the result of combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. The is predictable that the proposed modification would have precluded the need to register faces in advance, thereby enabling the disclosed tracking algorithm to be performed on unknown persons.
Stasi, like both of Valentino and Brewer, is directed to monitoring activity in a casino using video/image analysis (Abstract). Stasi discloses that a “database is maintained of all of the excluded players” including those that have been “barred” for a determined pattern of behavior, such as “cheating, criminal activity, advantage play” ([0166]). Stasi further discloses that images of players in the casino are “compared to all the players in the database of excluded players to determine if there is a match” in which case “appropriate casino personnel can be alerted” to “eject the detected player” (Abstract and [0166, 0207-0216]). That is, Stasi discloses causing, by the processor, to restrict the determined subsequent activity based, at least in part, on the determined pattern (Abstract and [0166, 0207-0216] discloses that a determined pattern of activity, such as cheating, criminal activity, or advantage play by an individual is determined and that activity is restricted by alerting personnel to eject the individual).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the proposed combination of Valentino and Brewer to alert personnel to eject an individual whom the system predicts will perform illicit activity based on prior such illicit activity, as taught by Stasi, to arrive at the claimed invention discussed above. Such a modification is the result of combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. It is predictable that the proposed modification would have served as the “deterrent” to illicit activities desired by Valentino ([0025]).
As to claim 2, Valentino as modified above further teaches that determining if the first person and the second person is substantially the same person comprises facial recognition ([0041] of Valentino discloses that “facial recognition” is used to determine whether the subject is associated with UID 330; [0067] of Brewer similarly discloses that “face recognition” is performed to determine whether the persons in the respective images is the same person; the reasons for combining the references are analogous to those discussed above in conjunction with claim 1).
As to claim 3, Valentino does not expressly disclose that determining the second activity associated with the received digital image of the second person comprises capturing and processing movements of at least one of the first person's limbs, torso, head, or eyes. However, Brewer discloses that the activities recorded to the log include “enters store”, “enters area 114”, “leaves area 114”, and similar movements ([0055-0057]). In particular, Brewer discloses that the person’s face is tracked to determine such movements ([0055-0057]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Valentino to determine the person’s activities by capturing and analyzing movements of the person’s face, as taught by Brewer, to arrive at the claimed invention discussed above. Such a modification is the result of combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. It is predictable that the proposed modification would have improved target tracking, as taught by Brewer ([0058] discloses that “face tracking may also be used to improve the human target tracking in each camera view”).
As to claim 4, Valentino does not expressly disclose that determining the pattern comprises determining the pattern based, at least in part, on dynamical systems. However, Brewer discloses that the activities recorded to the log include “enters store”, “enters area 114”, “leaves area 114”, and similar movements over time ([0055-0057]). Notably, the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claimed “dynamical systems” is a time-based pattern. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Valentino to determine the pattern of behavior based on the person’s movements over time, as taught by Brewer, to arrive at the claimed invention discussed above. Such a modification is the result of combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. It is predictable that the proposed modification would have improved the prediction of the person’s future movements ([0036-0037] of Brewer).
As to claim 5, Valentino does not expressly disclose that determining the subsequent plurality of activities of the second person based comprises directional processing. However, Brewer discloses that the activities recorded to the log include “enters store”, “enters area 114”, “leaves area 114”, and similar movements ([0055-0057]). Brewer further discloses a tracking algorithm which predicts the location of a person/face being tracked in a next frame ([0036-0037]). Such trajectory tracking reads on the claimed directional processing. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Valentino to perform directional processing to inform predictions, as taught by Brewer, to arrive at the claimed invention discussed above. Such a modification is the result of combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. It is predictable that the proposed modification would have improved the prediction of the person’s future movements ([0036-0037] of Brewer).
As to claim 8, Valentino further discloses that determining the pattern comprises receiving a subsequent plurality of images of the second person ([0048-0049] discloses that identifying the patterns of behavior of the subject 112 includes capturing further images of the subject 112 using camera 214 disposed in a different geographical location from camera 102 and/or camera 212).
Independent claim 9 recites a system comprising: a processor; a pattern determination module (PDM) communicatively coupled to the processor; and a non-transitory machine readable medium communicatively coupled to the PDM having stored therein a plurality of instructions, which, when executed by the processor, operatively enable a computing device ([0068-0070] and Fig. 8 of Valentino discloses “one or more processors”, “computer-readable medium” including “machine-readable instructions” that “operatively enable a computing device to provide the functionality described herein”) to perform the steps recited in the method of independent claim 1. Accordingly, claim 9 is rejected for reasons analogous to those discussed above in conjunction with claim 1 mutatis mutandis.
Claims 10-13 and 16 recite features nearly identical to those recited in claims 2-5 and 8, respectively. Accordingly, claims 10-13 and 16 are rejected for reasons analogous to those discussed above in conjunction with claims 2-5 and 8, respectively.
Claims 6-7 and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Valentino in view of Brewer and Stasi and further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2017/0308909 to Faith et al. (hereinafter “Faith”).
As to claim 6, Valentino as modified above does not expressly disclose that determining if the first person and the second person is substantially the same person comprises electronically searching a social media database.
Faith, like Valentino and Brewer, is directed to identifying persons using facial data using images capture in a surveillance environment comprising multiple cameras, for example in a store (Abstract and [0067]). Faith discloses that public social media profiles are searched to match pictures present therein with a target person who is present in video feed data from the cameras ([0146]). In particular, a face identified in a collected video feed is compared with faces included in pictures associated with the various social media profiles ([0047]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the proposed combination of Valentino, Brewer and Stasi to match faces in pictures associated with public social media profiles with the images captured in the surveillance environment, as taught by Faith, to arrive at the claimed invention discussed above. Such a modification is the result of combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. It is predictable that the proposed modification would have enabled targeted advertisements to be provided to the target person based on preferences reflected in their profile ([0101] of Faith).
As to claim 7, the proposed combination of Valentino, Brewer, Stasi and Faith further teaches that searching the social media database comprises determining information of the first person and the second person indirectly ([0097] of Faith discloses that the social media search includes posts and comments made by the target person (directly) as well as those made by other users (indirectly); the reasons for combining the references are the same as those discussed above in conjunction with claim 6).
Claims 14-15 recite features nearly identical to those recited in claims 6-7, respectively. Accordingly, claims 14-15 are rejected for reasons analogous to those discussed above in conjunction with claims 6-7, respectively.
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 SEAN M CONNER whose telephone number is (571)272-1486. The examiner can normally be reached 10 AM - 6 PM Monday through Friday, and some Saturday afternoons.
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, Greg Morse can be reached at (571) 272-3838. 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.
/SEAN M CONNER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2663