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 Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 11, filed 1/27/26, with respect to the title have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objection has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 12 and 13, filed 1/27/26, with respect to claim 110 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and 112(b) rejections have been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed 1/27/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding applicant’s argument for claim 1, on page 14, that Sorkey does not disclose obtaining image data of a plurality of candidate subjects, examiner disagrees. Column 9, lines 34-60 discloses gathering image data of a plurality of faces that may or may not be a “target subject” in a particular scenario; column 10, line 38 discloses that this may occur at the door to an operating room. Applicant appears to argue that identifying one candidate out of a plurality of candidates in a single image is not disclosed, however this argument is moot as only “image data of a plurality of candidates” is disclosed which is interpreted as a plurality of images (e.g. video) from which some faces can be identified. Examiner further notes that column 21, lines 5-32 specifically discloses identifying a plurality of potential matches prior to selecting a best match which directly contradicts applicant’s assertions on page 15 of the arguments. Therefore the argument is overcome and the previous rejection remains.
Regarding applicant’s argument for claim 8, on page 17, that Sorkey does not disclose segmenting because segmenting is a term of art that is limited to identification of one face amongst a scene with multiple faces, examiner disagrees. The broadest reasonable interpretation of “segmenting” a face is merely to isolate a face in a image as a distinct region from at least one other region. “Segmenting” in and of itself implies no specific image processing technique, merely the output of a potential variety of techniques. Cropping an image to retain a face and discard the background, through any specific processing technique, would result in the segmenting of the original image to obtain a face. Therefore the argument is overcome and the rejection remains.
Regarding applicant’s argument for claim 109, on page 18, that Sorkey does not disclose two identification processes, examiner disagrees. Sorkey (column 21, line 23) specifically discloses a metadata matching score (i.e. a determination using “reference identity”) that is utilized in addition to image matching to determine identity. In addition Sorkey discloses a process (as previously cited in column 7, lines 46-57 and also column 22, line 52 – column 23, line 16) for when data does not match (a metadata score being too low for example) that results in display of a screen (i.e. a “reminder”). Therefore the argument is overcome and the previous rejection remains.
Regarding applicant’s argument for claim 110, on page 20, that Balram does not disclose tracking subjects before entering an exam room and detecting a behavior to authenticate the subject, examiner finds the argument moot. Balram is utilized in combination with elements already disclosed by Sorkey. To be clear, Sorkey discloses multiple stages of user image and metadata gathering (i.e. accident site, entering ER, entering an operation room, etc.), Balram is utilized merely to show that a behavior (such as a gesture) can be obtained and stored for a particular subject and can then be used to authenticate the subject. Essentially, Balram discloses the method while Sorkey discloses the timing of the method. Therefore the argument is overcome and the previous rejection remains.
Election/Restrictions
Newly submitted claims 117-119 are directed to an invention that is independent or distinct from the invention originally claimed for the following reasons: claims are directed to unelected Invention II.
Since applicant has received an action on the merits for the originally presented invention, this invention has been constructively elected by original presentation for prosecution on the merits. Accordingly, claims 117-119 are withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention. See 37 CFR 1.142(b) and MPEP § 821.03.
To preserve a right to petition, the reply to this action must distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement. Otherwise, the election shall be treated as a final election without traverse. Traversal must be timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are subsequently added, applicant must indicate which of the subsequently added claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
1) Claim(s) 1-9, 77, 106-109 and 111-115 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by U.S. patent 12,087,412 by Sorkey et al.
2) Regarding claim 1, Sorkey teaches a method for subject identification implemented on a computing device having one or more processors and one or more storage devices, the method comprising: obtaining image data of a plurality of candidate subjects who enter an examination room, the plurality of candidate subjects including a target subject to be scanned by a medical imaging device and one or more subjects other than the target subject, the image data being captured by an image capturing device when or after the plurality of candidate subjects enter the examination room (column 9, lines 34-60 discloses gathering image data of a plurality of faces that may or may not be a “target subject” in a particular scenario; column 10, line 38 discloses that this may occur at the door to an operating room); obtaining reference information associated with the target subject (column 20, line 63 – column 21, line 32; database of faces and patient records is accessed); and identifying, from the plurality of candidate subjects, the target subject based on the reference information and the image data (column 20, line 63 – column 21, line 32; best match to candidate subject is determined).
3) Regarding claim 2, Sorkey teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the obtaining reference information associated with the target subject comprises: obtaining a replication image of at least one of an identity card, a medical insurance card, a medical card, or an examination application form of the target subject; and determining, based on the replication image, the reference information (column 7, lines 45-57; image of ID can be used).
4) Regarding claim 3, Sorkey teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the reference information associated with the target subject includes reference image data of the target subject (column 14, lines 9-33; patient facial image is matched against database of faces [i.e. the reference information]).
5) Regarding claim 4, Sorkey teaches the method of claim 3, wherein the obtaining reference information associated with the target subject comprises: obtaining the reference image data of the target subject captured by a second image capturing device mounted outside the examination room before the target subject enters the examination room (column 7, lines 2-11 and 52-57; reference face image data is acquired prior to patient entering an imaging room as shown in figure 1C; column 5, lines 3-5 and 45-60 also discloses obtaining reference images prior to entering an exam room).
6) Regarding claim 5, Sorkey teaches the method of claim 3, wherein the identifying, from the plurality of candidate subjects, the target subject based on the reference Information and the image data comprises: extracting, from the reference image data, reference feature information of the target subject; extracting, from the image data, feature information of each of the plurality of candidate subjects; and identifying, based on the reference feature information of the target subject and the feature information of the each of the at least one candidate subject, the target subject (column 18, line 60 - column 19, line 9; figure 3, items 302 and 308; features are extracted from facial images and compared).
7) Regarding claim 6, Sorkey teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the reference information associated with the target subject includes reference identity information of the target subject (column 14, lines 9-33; patient facial image is matched against database of faces [i.e. the reference information], a face is identity information).
8) Regarding claim 7, Sorkey teaches the method of claim 6, wherein the identifying, from the plurality of candidate subjects, the target subject based on the reference Information and the image data comprises: determining, based on the image data, identity information of each of the plurality of candidate subjects; and identifying, from the plurality of candidate subjects, the target subject by comparing the identity information of the each of the plurality of candidate subjects with the reference identity information of the target subject (column 18, line 60 - column 19, line 9; figure 3, items 302 and 308; features are extracted from facial images and compared).
9) Regarding claim 8, Sorkey teaches the method of claim 7, wherein the determining, based on the image data, identity information of each of the plurality of candidate subjects comprises: for the each of the plurality of candidate subjects, segmenting, from the image data, a human face of the candidate subject; and determining, based on the human face of the candidate subject and from an identity information database, the identity information of the candidate subject (column 18, line 60 - column 19, line 9; figure 3, items 302 and 308; face is cropped and compared to other faces in a database).
10) Regarding claim 9, Sorkey teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the obtaining reference information associated with a target subject to be examined comprises: causing a terminal device of a user to display the image data of the plurality of candidate subjects; and obtaining, via the terminal device, an input associated with the target subject from the user, and the identifying, from the plurality of candidate subjects, the target subject based on the reference information and the image data comprises: identifying, from the plurality of candidate subjects, the target subject based on the input (column 21, lines 26-32; user can manually confirm the patient match).
11) Regarding claim 77, Sorkey teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising: obtaining target image data of the target subject scanned or to be scanned by a medical imaging device; generating a display image based on the target image data; and transmitting the display image to a terminal device for display (figure 5A, item 502; column 22, lines 1-22; target image data of a patient can be displayed at a user terminal as shown).
12) Claim 106 is taught in the same manner as described in the rejection of claim 1 above.
13) Regarding claim 107, Sorkey teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the reference information associated with the target subject includes reference image data of the target subject and reference identity information of the target subject (column 20, line 32 – column 21, line 32; patient metadata can be submitted along with the facial image of a patient).
14) Regarding claim 108, Sorkey teaches the method of claim 107, wherein the obtaining reference information associated with a target subject to be examined comprises: determining a first target subject from the plurality of candidate subjects based on the reference image data of the target subject and the image data of the plurality of candidate subjects; determining a second target subject from the plurality of candidate subjects based on the reference identity information of the target subject and identity information of the each of the plurality of candidate subjects; and in response to determining that the first target subject is the same as the second target subject, determining that the first target subject or the second target subject is the target subject (column 21, line 5-32; face images are compared as well as patient identity data to determine a match).
15) Regarding claim 109, Sorkey teaches the method of claim 107, wherein the obtaining reference information associated with a target subject to be examined further comprises: determining a first target subject from the plurality of candidate subjects based on the reference image data of the target subject and the image data of the plurality of candidate subjects; determining a second target subject from the plurality of candidate subjects based on the reference identity information of the target subject and identity information of the each of the plurality of candidate subjects (column 21, line 5-32; face images are compared as well as patient identity data to determine a match); and in response to determining that the first target subject is different from the second target subject, re-identifying the first and second target subjects and/or generating a reminder regarding the identification result (column 21, line 23 specifically discloses a metadata matching score [i.e. a determination using “reference identity”] that is utilized in addition to image matching to determine identity; in addition Sorkey discloses a process [as previously cited in column 7, lines 46-57 and also column 22, line 52 – column 23, line 16] for when data does not match [a metadata score being too low for example] that results in display of a screen [i.e. a “reminder”]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
16) Claims 110, 116 and 120 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. patent 12,087,412 by Sorkey et al. as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of U.S. patent application publication 2015/0087257 by Balram et al.
Sorkey does not specifically teach the method of claim 3, wherein the reference image data of the target subject is obtained by: tracking the state of the at least one candidate subject based on image data of the at least one candidate subject captured by a second image capture device before the target subject enters the examination room; in response to detecting that a candidate subject of the at least one candidate subject makes a specific behavior, determining the candidate subject as the target subject and determining the image data of the candidate subject captured by the second image capture device as the reference image data (Sorkey does disclose [column 7, lines 2-11 and 52-57; column 5, lines 3-5 and 45-60] reference face image data is acquired prior to patient entering an imaging room as shown in figure 1C as well as metadata utilized in column 21 but fails to specifically disclose behavior data as identifying metadata).
Balram teaches the method of claim 3, wherein the reference image data of the target subject is obtained by: tracking the state of the at least one candidate subject based on image data of the at least one candidate subject captured by a second image capture device before the target subject enters the examination room; in response to detecting that a candidate subject of the at least one candidate subject makes a specific behavior, determining the candidate subject as the target subject and determining the image data of the candidate subject captured by the second image capture device as the reference image data (paragraph 88; user can be authenticated through image recognition of user gestures [i.e. behavior]).
Sorkey and Balram are combinable because they are both from the user recognition field of endeavor.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to combine Sorkey with Balram to add gesture recognition. The motivation for doing so would have been “to determine a purpose of a customer’s visit” (paragraph 88). Therefore it would have been obvious to combine Sorkey with Balram to obtain the invention of claim 110.
17) Balram (as combined with Sorkey in the rejection of claim 110 above) teaches the method of claim 110, wherein the specific behavior includes one of making a specific gesture, making a specific sound, and standing in a specific area for a period of time that exceeds a time threshold (paragraph 88; user can be authenticated through image recognition of user gestures [i.e. behavior]).
18) Claim 120 is taught in the same manner as described in the rejections of claims 1, 3, 4 and 10 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 BENJAMIN O DULANEY whose telephone number is (571)272-2874. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 10-6.
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, Abderrahim Merouan can be reached at (571)270-5254. 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.
BENJAMIN O. DULANEY
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2676
/BENJAMIN O DULANEY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2683
Prosecution Insights