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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 08/29/2023 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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.
Claim(s) 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover mental process (concept performed in a human mind, including as observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion, organizing human activity and mathematical concepts and calculations). The claim(s) recite(s) a method and systems for identifying relevant faces in images. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the steps do not add meaningful limitations to be considered specifically applied to a particular technological problem to be solved .The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the steps of the claimed invention can be done mentally and no additional features in the claims would preclude them from being performed as such except for the generic computer elements at high level of generality (i.e., processor, memory).
According to the USPTO guidelines, a claim is directed to non-statutory subject matter if:
STEP 1: the claim does not fall within one of the four statutory categories of invention (process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter), or
STEP 2: the claim recites a judicial exception, e.g. an abstract idea, without reciting additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, as determined using the following analysis:
STEP 2A (PRONG 1): Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
STEP 2A (PRONG 2): Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
STEP 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
Using the two-step inquiry, it is clear that claims 1, 14, and 18 are directed to an abstract idea as shown below:
STEP 1: Do the claims fall within one of the statutory categories?
YES
Claim(s) 1, 14, and 18 are directed to a method and systems, respectively.
STEP 2A (PRONG 1): Is the claim directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon or an abstract idea?
YES
The claims are directed toward a mental process (i.e. abstract idea).
With regard to STEP 2A (PRONG 1), the guidelines provide three groupings of subject matter that are considered abstract ideas:
Mathematical concepts – mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations;
Certain methods of organizing human activity – fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions); and
Mental processes – concepts that are practicably performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion).
The method in claim 1 and the systems in claims 14 and 17 comprise a mental process that can be practicably performed in the human mind (or generic computers or components configured to perform the method) and, therefore, an abstract idea.
Regarding Claim(s) 1, 14, and 18: the method recites the steps (functions) of:
identifying one or more faces in an image (mental process including observation and evaluation, and can be done mentally in the human mind);
determining, based on a confidence level associated with at least one of the one or more faces, whether the image is relevant to the user (mental process including observation and evaluation, and can be done mentally in the human mind);
These limitations, as drafted, is a simple process that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations in the mind or by a human. The Examiner notes that under MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III), the courts consider a mental process (thinking) that “can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper" to be an abstract idea. CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1372, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1695 (Fed. Cir. 2011). As the Federal Circuit explained, "methods which can be performed mentally, or which are the equivalent of human mental work, are unpatentable abstract ideas the ‘basic tools of scientific and technological work’ that are open to all.’" 654 F.3d at 1371, 99 USPQ2d at 1694 (citing Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 175 USPQ 673 (1972)). See also Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs. Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 71, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1965 ("‘[M]ental processes[] and abstract intellectual concepts are not patentable, as they are the basic tools of scientific and technological work’" (quoting Benson, 409 U.S. at 67, 175 USPQ at 675)); Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 589, 198 USPQ 193, 197 (1978) (same).
As such, a person could look at an image and compare it to stored or other images to determine whether the person in the images is the same or different either mentally or using a pen and paper. The mere nominal recitation that the various steps are being executed by a device/in a device (e.g. processing unit) does not take the limitations out of the mental process grouping. Thus, the claims recite a mental process.
STEP 2A (PRONG 2): Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No.
The claims do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
With regard to STEP 2A (prong 2), whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, the guidelines provide the following exemplary considerations that are indicative that an additional element (or combination of elements) may have integrated the judicial exception into a practical application:
an additional element reflects an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field;
an additional element that applies or uses a judicial exception to affect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition;
an additional element implements a judicial exception with, or uses a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim;
an additional element effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; and
an additional element 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.
While the guidelines further state that the exemplary considerations are not an exhaustive list and that there may be other examples of integrating the exception into a practical application, the guidelines also list examples in which a judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application:
an additional element merely recites the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely includes instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea;
an additional element adds insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception; and
an additional element does no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
Claim(s) 1, 14, and 18 do not recite any of the exemplary considerations that are indicative of an abstract idea having been integrated into a practical application. Claim(s) 1, 14, and 18 recite(s) the further limitations of:
obtaining, by a first computing device for a face of each of multiple persons associated with a user, a face profile of the person (insignificant pre -solution extra activity of gathering data suing generic computers or components);
an image captured by the first computing device (insignificant pre -solution extra activity of gathering data suing generic computers or components);
taking, in response to determining that the image is relevant to the user, one or more actions to keep the image (insignificant post-solution extra activity of generating data).
Claim 14 recites the further limitations of:
a computing device comprising: a processor implemented in hardware; and
a computer-readable storage medium having stored thereon multiple instructions (generic computers or components).
Claim 18 recites the further limitations of:
A first computing device comprising: an image relevance determination system, implemented at least in part in hardware (generic computers or components).
These limitations are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general action or change being taken based on the results of the acquiring step) and amounts to mere post solution actions, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. Further, the claims are claimed generically and are operating in their ordinary capacity such that they do not use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
STEP 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
NO.
The claims do not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
With regard to STEP 2B, whether the claims recite additional elements that provide significantly more than the recited judicial exception, the guidelines specify that the pre-guideline procedure is still in effect. Specifically, that examiners should continue to consider whether an additional element or combination of elements:
adds a specific limitation or combination of limitations that are not well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field, which is indicative that an inventive concept may be present; or
simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, which is indicative that an inventive concept may not be present.
Claim(s) 1, 14, and 18 do not recite any additional elements that are not well-understood, routine or conventional. The use of a computer to obtaining, identifying, determining, and taking as claimed in Claim(s) 1, 14, and 18 is a routine, well-understood and conventional process that is performed by computers.
Thus, since Claim(s) 1, 14, and 18 are: (a) directed toward an abstract idea, (b) do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, and (c) do not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, it is clear that Claim(s) 1, 14, and 18 are not eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C 101.
Regarding claim 2-13, 15-17, and 19-20: the additional limitations do not integrate the mental process into practical application or add significantly more to the mental process. The additional limitation(s) fall under (mental process including observation and evaluation, and can be done mentally in the human mind) OR (insignificant pre/post-solution extra activity of gathering/generating data) OR (generic computers or components configured to perform the method).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4-8, 10, 12-15, and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Gilley (US 20100172550).
Regarding claim 1:
Gilley discloses: a method (¶ [0007] “In general, one aspect of the subject matter described in this specification can be embodied in a computer-implemented method for organizing images” comprising:
obtaining, by a first computing device for a face of each of multiple persons associated with a user, a face profile of the person (¶ [0008] “..The method can include obtaining the one or more profile images and profile information associated with the one or more profile images from an address book application; and generating the stored facial profile based on the one or more profile images and the profile information.”);
identifying one or more faces in an image captured by the first computing device (¶ [0007] “…the computer-implemented method including receiving an image that includes a representation of a human face; ¶ [0047] “The facial analysis engine 220 can be configured to detect and recognize one or more faces represented in images. The facial analysis engine 220 can receive an image and settings, and can detect whether the image represents a face corresponding to a person”);
determining, based on a confidence level associated with at least one of the one or more faces, whether the image is relevant to the user (¶ [0007] “…the computer-implemented method including receiving an image that includes a representation of a human face; generating a correlation value indicating a likelihood that the human face corresponds to a stored facial profile associated with one or more profile images including a human face”; ¶ [0048] “…the facial analysis engine 220 also can correlate faces by comparing a graphical face to other graphical faces to determine if they belong to the same person”; ¶ [0052] “…The correlation process 300 iteratively adjusts a correlation threshold to produce an acceptable number of groups of images. The groups can be referred to as "buckets." Each bucket can contain images believed to represent the same person. If the correlation threshold is set very high, the process 300 will not correlate two images unless it is virtually certain that the images represent the face of the same person. Thus, if the correlation threshold is set very high, more buckets with fewer images in each will be generated as some images of the same individual likely will not be correlated. If the correlation threshold is set very low, the process 300 can frequently correlate faces that may not correspond to the same person. Thus, setting the correlation threshold to a low value can produce fewer buckets with more images in each. However, the likelihood is increased that two images will be correlated that do not represent a face corresponding to the same individual”; ¶ [0055] “f it is determined that there are too many buckets, the threshold value can be decreased (316). In addition, if the process 300, at 310, determines that there are too many singletons (e.g., indicating the degree of confidence required to assign an image to a bucket is too high), the threshold value also can be decreased (316). Decreasing the threshold value allows the process 300 to correlate images based on a lower degree of confidence. Once the threshold value is decreased, the process 300 once again performs correlation of the images (306).”));
taking, in response to determining that the image is relevant to the user, one or more actions to keep the image (¶ [0007] “…evaluating the received image and the generated correlation value to determine, depending on a result of the evaluating, whether the image corresponds to the stored facial profile; associating the received image with the stored facial profile; and storing an indication of the associating”; ¶ [0011] “…Correlating faces can be implemented to permit automatically sorting images into one or more storage structures, such as folders or albums”).
Regarding claim 2:
Gilley further discloses: wherein the one or more actions comprise saving the image in a local storage device of the computing device (¶ [0011] “…Correlating faces can be implemented to permit automatically sorting images into one or more storage structures, such as folders or albums”).
Regarding claim 4:
Gilley further discloses: wherein the user is a user of the computing device (¶ [0034] ” The computer system 112 can be configured to receive images transferred from a digital camera, such as the digital camera 102. The computer system 112 can be a computer (e.g., a desktop, a laptop, a server, etc.), a mobile telephone (e.g., a Blackberry), a PDA, or other such device”; ¶ [0038] “..The correlation system 114 can run on the computer system 112 and process the images 104, 106, 108 and 110, such as in response to a command received from a user or automatically in response to the transmission of images”).
Regarding claim 5:
Gilley further discloses: wherein the user is a person other than an owner of the computing device (¶ [0045] “…For example, if a user uploads images to a social network site (e.g., Facebook), the user and the user's friends can identify faces in the images. The identifications can be received as input and used in correlating images”).
Regarding claim 6:
Gilley further discloses: wherein the obtaining comprises extracting, by the computing device, the face profile from face data accessible to the computing device (¶ [0007] “generating a correlation value indicating a likelihood that the human face corresponds to a stored facial profile associated with one or more profile images including a human face”; ¶ [0008] “..The method can include obtaining the one or more profile images and profile information associated with the one or more profile images from an address book application; and generating the stored facial profile based on the one or more profile images and the profile information.”).
Regarding claim 7:
Gilley further discloses: wherein the obtaining comprises extracting, by the computing device, the face profile from face data accessible to the computing device (¶ [0007] “generating a correlation value indicating a likelihood that the human face corresponds to a stored facial profile associated with one or more profile images including a human face”; ¶ [0008] “..The method can include obtaining the one or more profile images and profile information associated with the one or more profile images from an address book application; and generating the stored facial profile based on the one or more profile images and the profile information.”).
Regarding claim 8:
Gilley further discloses: wherein the face data includes images of people included in a contacts list of the computing device or in one or more social media services accessible to the computing device (¶ [0008] “…The method can include obtaining the one or more profile images and profile information associated with the one or more profile images from an address book application”; ¶ [0045] “ User input also can be received through a network 206 (e.g., the Internet) from a remote server 208 (e.g., a website). For example, if a user uploads images to a social network site (e.g., Facebook), the user and the user's friends can identify faces in the images.”).
Regarding claim 10:
Gilley further discloses: wherein the obtaining comprises receiving the face profiles of the multiple persons from a second computing device, and wherein the user is a user of the second computing device (¶ [0008] “..The method can include obtaining the one or more profile images and profile information associated with the one or more profile images from an address book application; and generating the stored facial profile based on the one or more profile images and the profile information.”; (¶ [0034] ” The computer system 112 can be configured to receive images transferred from a digital camera, such as the digital camera 102. The computer system 112 can be a computer (e.g., a desktop, a laptop, a server, etc.), a mobile telephone (e.g., a Blackberry), a PDA, or other such device”; ¶ [0038] “..The correlation system 114 can run on the computer system 112 and process the images 104, 106, 108 and 110, such as in response to a command received from a user or automatically in response to the transmission of images”. Nothing in the claim precludes the second computing device to be the same as the first computing device).
Regarding claim 12:
Gilley further discloses: wherein the one or more actions comprise displaying, on a display device of the computing device, an indication of one or more of the faces having a confidence level above a threshold value (¶ [0081] – ¶ [0086] “…The user interface 602 can prompt a user to provide input through a dialogue box 608 confirming the identity of a person (e.g., James) or otherwise providing identifying information. In some implementations, the dialogue box 608 can include a "Yes" option 610 and "No" option 612 to allow the user to indicate whether the face belongs to James. The dialogue box 608, providing only confirmation options 610 and 612, can be provided when the correlation system is very confident about the identity of the person 606 shown”).
Regarding claim 13:
Gilley further discloses: further comprising deleting the image in response to determining that the image is not relevant to the user (¶ [0068] “The process 400 continues by eliminating a detection (414) determined to not be valid (412). Elimination can include, e.g., deleting the detection from memory, associating the detection with a suppression indication, or storing the detection in a list of false positives”; ¶ [0047] “…Since it is rare that an image represents two faces corresponding the same individual, the less likely correlation (e.g., determined by confidence value) can be eliminated.”).
Regarding claims 14-15, and 17-18: the claims limitations are similar to those of claims 1, 2, and 13 and 1, respectively; therefore, rejected in the same manner as applied above.
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.
Claim(s) 3, 11, 16, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gilley (US 20100172550) in view of Ganong (US 20150131872).
Regarding claim 3:
Gilley discloses the limitations of claim 1 as applied above.
Gilley further discloses: ¶ [0030] In general, images can be transmitted from a camera to a computer. The computer can include a correlation system. The correlation system can correlate the images by grouping images of the same individual.”
Gilley does not specifically teach: wherein the one or more actions comprise transmitting the image to a remote storage associated with the user.
Nonetheless, in a related field, Ganong teaches: wherein the one or more actions comprise transmitting the image to a remote storage associated with the user (¶ [0105] “…the computer program herein provided may automatically transmit the image to the person's computer for presentation to the person.” ¶ [0158] “FIG. 7 illustrates a system and method for providing the automatic selective dissemination of photos between users of the invention. When the face of a known person that is a member of a peer group is recognized within a photo (53), the photo (53) may be queued to be transmitted across the Internet (11) in a secure fashion to the peer group member. For example, a first user (13) may upload to their computer system (15) a photo containing the face of a known person that is a second user (17), who is also a peer group member. In this case, when the system determines a face match, the photo (53) may be queued for transmission”; ¶ [0160] “…The invention may transmit a single photo or group of photos to a target web or cloud based service. The transmitted photos may already contain metadata from the invention about the people that are in the photo”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Gilley to incorporate the teachings of Ganong by including: wherein the one or more actions comprise transmitting the image to a remote storage associated with the user in order to store the matched image at a cloud-based service or present it to the associated user.
Regarding claim 11:
Gilley discloses the limitations of claim 10 as applied above.
Gilley further discloses: ¶ [0030] In general, images can be transmitted from a camera to a computer. The computer can include a correlation system. The correlation system can correlate the images by grouping images of the same individual.”
Gilley does not specifically teach: wherein the one or more actions comprise transmitting the image to the second computing device.
Nonetheless, in a related field, Ganong teaches: wherein the one or more actions comprise transmitting the image to the second computing device (¶ [0105] “…the computer program herein provided may automatically transmit the image to the person's computer for presentation to the person.” ¶ [0158] “FIG. 7 illustrates a system and method for providing the automatic selective dissemination of photos between users of the invention. When the face of a known person that is a member of a peer group is recognized within a photo (53), the photo (53) may be queued to be transmitted across the Internet (11) in a secure fashion to the peer group member. For example, a first user (13) may upload to their computer system (15) a photo containing the face of a known person that is a second user (17), who is also a peer group member. In this case, when the system determines a face match, the photo (53) may be queued for transmission”; ¶ [0160] “…The invention may transmit a single photo or group of photos to a target web or cloud based service. The transmitted photos may already contain metadata from the invention about the people that are in the photo”).
Regarding claim 16:
Gilley further discloses: wherein the obtaining comprises receiving the face profiles of the multiple persons from a second computing device, wherein the user is a user of the second computing device (¶ [0008] “..The method can include obtaining the one or more profile images and profile information associated with the one or more profile images from an address book application; and generating the stored facial profile based on the one or more profile images and the profile information.”; (¶ [0034] ” The computer system 112 can be configured to receive images transferred from a digital camera, such as the digital camera 102. The computer system 112 can be a computer (e.g., a desktop, a laptop, a server, etc.), a mobile telephone (e.g., a Blackberry), a PDA, or other such device”; ¶ [0038] “..The correlation system 114 can run on the computer system 112 and process the images 104, 106, 108 and 110, such as in response to a command received from a user or automatically in response to the transmission of images”. Nothing in the claim precludes the second computing device to be the same as the first computing device).
Gilley does not specifically teach: wherein the one or more actions comprise transmitting the image to the second computing device.
Nonetheless, in a related field, Ganong teaches: wherein the one or more actions comprise transmitting the image to the second computing device (¶ [0105] “…the computer program herein provided may automatically transmit the image to the person's computer for presentation to the person.” ¶ [0158] “FIG. 7 illustrates a system and method for providing the automatic selective dissemination of photos between users of the invention. When the face of a known person that is a member of a peer group is recognized within a photo (53), the photo (53) may be queued to be transmitted across the Internet (11) in a secure fashion to the peer group member. For example, a first user (13) may upload to their computer system (15) a photo containing the face of a known person that is a second user (17), who is also a peer group member. In this case, when the system determines a face match, the photo (53) may be queued for transmission”; ¶ [0160] “…The invention may transmit a single photo or group of photos to a target web or cloud based service. The transmitted photos may already contain metadata from the invention about the people that are in the photo”).
Regarding claims 19-20: the claim limitations are similar to those of claims 3 and 16, respectively; therefore, rejected in the same manner as applied above.
Claim(s) 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gilley (US 20100172550) in view of Chan (US 20190163962).
Regarding claim 9:
Gilley discloses the limitations of claim 1 as applied above.
While Gilley further discloses: ¶ [0044] “..The identification can be used subsequently in identifying other images of the same person. In addition, input can be received from other applications having relevant information. For example, data from an address book application can be used. The data can include images, names, email addresses, etc.”; ¶ [0052] “…The correlation process 300 iteratively adjusts a correlation threshold to produce an acceptable number of groups of images. The groups can be referred to as "buckets." Each bucket can contain images believed to represent the same person” Which correspond to using contacts/social sources and confidence levels.
Gilley does not specifically teach multi-image confidence combination and social profile access as required by claim 9.
However, in a related field, Chan teaches: wherein a face that appears multiple times in one or more social media services accessible to the device or in a contacts list of the computing device has a higher confidence level than faces that appear a single time in the one or more social media services accessible to the device or in the contacts list of the computing device (¶¶ [0030] – [0033] “…combining the input confidence score from comparing the input images to a known profile image can generate a combined confidence score. For example, if a combined confidence score has a range of 0 to 1, 1 means the input images together match very well with a profile image. The combination could be a simple linear combination technique, where each input confidence level is multiplied by a weight and the average or sum is used as the combined confidence score”; ¶ [0025] “…In other embodiments, user identification program 106 obtains authorization to access data from the social media profiles provided by the user. In our exemplary embodiment, Ben provides a link to his social media profiles and provides user identification program 106 with the pertinent authorization to access the social media profiles”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Gilley to incorporate the teachings of Chan by including: w wherein a face that appears multiple times in one or more social media services accessible to the device or in a contacts list of the computing device has a higher confidence level than faces that appear a single time in the one or more social media services accessible to the device or in the contacts list of the computing device in order to increase identification confidence predictably, yielding the claimed higher confidence for daces appearing multi0ple times in social media/contacts relative to single appearance.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WASSIM MAHROUKA whose telephone number is (571)272-2945. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8:00-5:00 EST.
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, Stephen Koziol can be reached at (408) 918-7630. 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.
/WASSIM MAHROUKA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2665