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 . 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 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.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 8, 11-12, 18, 21-22 are amended.
Claims 3, 5-6, 13, 15-16 are cancelled.
Claims 1-2, 4, 7-12, 14, 17-22 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 8 filed 07/21/2026, with respect to claims 1, 2, 4, 7-12, 14, and 17-22 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objection of 03/25/2026 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 8-9 filed 07/21/2026, with respect to claims 1, 2, 4, 7-12, 14, and 17-22 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) of 03/25/2026 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 8-9 filed 07/21/2026, with respect to claims 1, 2, 4, 7-12, 14, and 17-22 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) of 03/25/2026 has been withdrawn.
Applicant's amendments/arguments filed on 07/21/2026 have been fully considered.
With respect to rejection of claim under 35 USC 101, Applicant asserts, “To clarify this, independent claims 1, 4, 11, and 14 have been amended herein to clarify that "said first biometric information comprises facial recognition information and said facial recognition information is derived from identified nodal points in said first digital image." This recitation specifically describes a feature of the claimed invention, i.e., processing a digital image to obtain biometric information, which could not be carried out as a mental process due to the derivation of identified nodal points in the digital image. As such, the claims do not recite a judicial exception but rather are directed to securing access to digital images, which, by definition, must be carried out by a computer. As a result, the instant claims are directed to an improvement in computer functionality and not an abstract idea.”.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The amended claim limitation of “wherein said first biometric information comprises facial recognition information and said facial recognition information is derived from identified nodal points in said first digital image” is considered as mental process. The limitation of “facial recognition information is derived from identified nodal points in said first digital image” could be perform by human. For example, a human could inspect (process) an image and identify facial nodal points (e.g., eye, nose, mouth) and use those observations to recognize or distinguish a face. The human brain naturally performs a very similar cognitive operation.
The limitation does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Additionally, the limitation implements an abstract idea using a generic computer component and does not effect an improvement in improvement in computer functionality or another technology, and therefore fails to satisfy 35 USC 101 under the Alice farmwork.
The rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 of 03/25/2026 is maintained.
Response to 103: Applicant's amendments/arguments filed on 07/21/2026 have been fully considered.
Applicant argues: i. Vanhoucke Does Not Teach or Suggest All Elements of Claim 1: “Vanhoucke does not disclose the claim elements of "said computer platform being operatively coupled with a network that enables a group of network users access to said collection of digital photographs" and "restricting access to said matching photographs via said computer platform"… Vanhoucke is directed to finding similar faces and providing search results, not to restricting access to photographs.”
Examiner respectfully disagree because claimed limitations “computer platform being operatively coupled with a network that enables a group of networks users access to said collection of digital photographs" and "restricting access to said matching photographs via said computer platform" disclosed by Joseph not by Vanhoucke. Joseph disclosed blocking access for blacklisted users of the interactive environment who are not permitted to see their true face to protect the privacy of the user. It would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Vanhoucke’s method of identify one or more faces in the collection that are determined as being similar to the face of the query image input by applying Joseph’s method of blocking access to the blacklisted users who are not permitted to see their true faces. This would achieve claimed functionality.
Applicant argues that “Vanhoucke does not disclose or suggest a platform that stores and enables user access to a collection. As conceded by the Office, Vanhoucke does not disclose this claim element”
Examiner respectfully disagree because of this “computer platform being operatively coupled with a network that enables a group of networks users’ access to said collection of digital photographs” disclosed by cited reference “Joseph”. Also claims does not recites “a platform stores a collection of photographs” as argued.
Applicant argues: ii. Joseph Does Not Cure the Deficiencies of Vanhoucke:
“Joseph does not teach or suggest preventing access to matching photographs… claim 1 requires "preventing access to said matching photographs," meaning that the entire photograph is not shown”.
Examiner respectfully disagree because Fredinsburg disclose in [col 21, lines 9-23], The search routine first checks the privacy preferences… results of an image and/or facial recognition search are not provided to a requester. Fredingsburg disclose in [col 4, lines 26-32], face recognition search system 112 will access facial image database 114 to look for facial matches to the image query…the facial recognition search system 112 will return one or more search results (e.g., names, matching faces, etc.) (=matching photographs) from the facial image database 114. Therefore, cited reference Fredinsburg disclose not providing search results to the requester in [Col 21, lines 9-23] which reads on claimed limitations of “preventing access to the matching photographs”
Applicant argues: iii. Fredinburg Does Not Cure the Deficiencies of Vanhoucke and Joseph
“Fredinburg does not describe preventing access to photographs stored in a collection on a platform… The claimed invention restricts access to the photographs themselves on the platform (e.g., by removing them from the collection as displayed).” And “claims require restricting of access to matching photographs via a computer platform by preventing access to the matching photographs entirely
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., restricts access to the photographs themselves on the platform (e.g., by removing them from the collection as displayed)) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). 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). Under broadest reasonable interpretation not proving search result to the requester reads on claimed limitations “preventing access to the matching photographs”.
Applicant argues: iv. There is No Motivation to Combine the Cited References
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Applicant’s argument with respect to amended limitation of claim 1 “wherein said first biometric information comprises facial recognition information and said facial recognition information is derived from identified nodal points in said first digital image” and amended claim limitations of claim 21 “wherein said restricting access comprises distorting said first portions by cropping said first portions” are moot in view of a new ground of rejection.
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 1-2, 4, 7-12, 14, 17-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Statutory category
Claim 1 and 4 are directed to a “method” and therefore recites a process. Claims 11 and 14 recites an system, therefore, is an apparatus category, which fall within manufacture category. Thus, the claims fall within one of the four statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A Prong I Judicial exception
Under the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, each independent claim is evaluated to determine whether it recites a judicial exception, including abstract ideas such as mental processes and method of organizing human activity, which have been recognized as abstract idea. Thus, the analysis moves towards step 2A, Prong II.
For this analysis, generic references to “a computer platform having memory” (Claims 1, 4, 11, 14); “providing a filter module software operative on said computer platform” (Claims 1, 4, 11, 14), “a network” (Claims 1, 4, 11, 14). “a facial recognition technology” (Claim 7 and 17) are disregarded, and the focus is on the remaining substantive language.
For claim 1, 4, 11 and 14, once the generic computer implementation language is analyzed separately, the method recites that it:
receiving a first digital image;
-a person B receiving a photograph of person A.
“processing said first digital image…”;
-Person “Y can check the correctness of the provided solutions/answers in mind or using pen and paper.
“wherein said first biometric information comprises facial recognition information and said facial recognition information is derived from identified nodal points in said first digital image”
-a human could inspect (process) an image and identify facial nodal points (e.g., eye, nose, mouth) and use those observations to recognize or distinguish a face. The human brain naturally performs a very similar cognitive operation.
“comparing said first biometric information…”;
Comparing face feature of the photograph with set of photographs in the album to determine if the person A is in the album. .
“restricting access… preventing access to entireties of said matching photographs”;
- it could be done by a person B, looking at a picture of person A before showing it to someone else to decide whether to show it or not.
Accordingly, under Step 2A Prong I of the 2019 Guidance, independent claims 1, 15 and 18 each recite an abstract idea in the form of mental processes and method of organizing human activity, even when generic references to electronic or computer implementation are disregarded.
Step 2A Prong II Integration into a practical application:
Under Step 2A Prong II, the claims are evaluated to determine whether any additional elements, viewed individually and in combination, integrate the identified abstract idea into a practical application.
In claims 1, 4, 11 and 14, the elements beyond the abstract mental steps or method of organizing human activity are that the method steps are implemented “Claims 1, 4, 11 and 14 are further analyzed in step 2A prong 2, to evaluate whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception. This evaluation is performed by identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception, and evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application. However, each of the remaining limitation “a computer platform having memory”; “a network”, “computer platform” “a facial recognition technology” (Claim 7 and 17) appears to be generic computer functions which do not constitute meaningful limitations that would amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
The combination of these additional element is no more than generic computer functions. Thus, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limitations on practicing the abstract idea.
Independent claims 1, 4, 11, and 14, therefore do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application under Step 2A Prong II.
Step 2B Inventive concept:
Under Step 2B, the claims are analyzed to determine whether any additional element, or combination of elements, amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself, that is, whether there is an inventive concept. As discussed above, the additional elements in the independent claims consist of generic computer components such as processors, non-transitory computer readable media, and a computer device, natural language processing as well as the statement that the abstract scheme is used in an anonymous credential system. The specification describes these components at a high level as conventional computing devices suitable for executing instructions. Implementing the recited abstract operations of
“receiving a first digital image;
-a person B receiving a photograph of person A.
“processing said first digital image…”;
-Person “Y can check the correctness of the provided solutions/answers in mind or using pen and paper.
“wherein said first biometric information comprises facial recognition information and said facial recognition information is derived from identified nodal points in said first digital image”
-a human could inspect (process) an image and identify facial nodal points (e.g., eye, nose, mouth) and use those observations to recognize or distinguish a face. The human brain naturally performs a very similar cognitive operation.
“comparing said first biometric information…”;
Comparing face feature of the photograph with set of photographs in the album to determine if the person A is in the album. .
“restricting access… preventing access to entireties of said matching photographs”;
- it could be done by a person B, looking at a picture of person A before showing it to someone else to decide whether to show it or not.
Independent claims 1, 15 and 18 therefore do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application under Step 2B.
Regarding Claims 2 and 12, further recites: “restricting comprises preventing access to entireties of said matching photographs for the entire group of network users” These limitations merely elaborate on the abstract idea identified in the independent claims. Simply receiving the restricting comprises preventing access to entireties of said matching photographs for the entire group of network users. It could be done by a person looking at a picture before showing it to someone else to decide whether to show it or not .
No additional elements are introduced in claim 2 and claim 12 that would integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. As a whole, claim 2 and claim 12 fails to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application is found non‐statutory under 35 U.S.C. 101 with the addition of the abstract idea.
Regarding Claims 4 and 14: Claims 4-14 do not add any additional abstract ideas and/or elements as already present, respectively, in claims 1. For that reason, claims 4, 14 are rejected using the same rational as claims 1.
Regarding Claims 7 and 17 recites: the additional elements “processing comprises implementing a facial recognition technology”. However, the additionally cited elements fail to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because it merely implementing some generic computer technique and merely can be considered mental process and/or using pen and paper and method of organizing human activity.
Regarding Claim 8 and 18 recites: the additional abstract idea of “biometric information comprises reference spatial information concerning a physical feature of a protected person”.
However, the additionally cited abstract ideas fail to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because it merely applies some generic action to the system of claim 1 and merely can be considered mental process and/or using pen and paper and method of organizing human activity. It could be done by a person looking at a picture before showing it to someone else to decide whether to show it or not
Regarding Claim 9 and 19 recites: the additional abstract idea of “extracting first feature information from said first digital image and deriving a first set of values based on said features”.
However, the additionally cited abstract ideas fail to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because it merely applies some generic action to the system of claim 1 and merely can be considered mental process and/or using pen and paper and method of organizing human activity.
Regarding Claim 10 and 20 recites: the additional abstract idea of “comparing comprises extracting second feature information to each candidate digital photograph of said collection of digital photographs, deriving candidate sets of values for each of said candidate digital photographs, and comparing said first set of values to each of said candidate sets of values”.
However, the additionally cited abstract ideas fail to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because it merely applies some generic action to the system of claim 1 and merely can be considered mental process and/or using pen and paper and method of organizing human activity.
Accordingly, independent claims 1, 4, 11, 14, and dependent claims 2, 7, 8, 9, 10, 12, 17, 18-20 that stand with them, do not recite an inventive concept sufficient to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application. The claims are therefore directed to an abstract idea and fail to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception under 35 U.S.C. 101.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4, 7-12, 14, 17-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vanhoucke et al. (U. S. Pat. No. 9,542,419 B1) (hereinafter “Vanhoucke”) in view of JOSEPH et al. (U. S. PGPub. No. 2023/0342487 A1) (hereinafter “JOSEPH”) and Fredinburg et al. (U. S Pat. No. 9,098,584 B1) (hereinafter “Fredinburg”); and further in view of Nicholson et al. (U. S. Pat. No. 11,606,513 B2) (hereinafter “Nicholson”)
Regarding Claim 1, Vanhoucke teaches:
providing a computer platform having memory storing a collection of digital photographs (Vanhoucke: [Col 4, lines 23-31], The query image input 102 may correspond to an image of a face of a person that is to serve as the basis for comparison. For example, a user of a social network site may use his own image as input, for comparison and identification of other persons who share similarities. The engine 110 may use query image input 102 to generate result images 114, comprising a set of images that are programmatically determined to be similar to the face of the query image input 102. [Col 2, lines 57-64], The comparison module is configured to compare a query image input of the face with a collection of images of other faces in order to identify one or more faces in the collection that are determined as being similar to the face of the query image input. The query image input comprises image data representing the face and the one or more biographical classifications determined about the face using at least the text and metadata);
providing a filter software operative in said computer platform for: (Vanhoucke: [Col 2, lines 44-46], (7) For example, the determined classifications may be used to filter a search result, or enhance determinations made about the image when the image is analyzed. [Col 3, lines 14-35], A filtering agent 110 may determine individuals are represented in the image, for example, using facial recognition technique. In another aspect, the filtering agent 110 may use image tagging technique, which has images tagged with identifiers, to determine individuals in the image. The filtering agent 110 may determine whether any of the individuals in the image need to be obscured, based on one or more criteria, for example, which may be specified in privacy settings and/or policy settings. Examples of criteria may include an access control list (ACL) to determine a particular user's rights to view an individual in the image, relationships between individuals in the image, and others. For instance, a policy setting may indicate that user A is authorized to view a subset of faces in a particular image, but user B is not authorized so the faces will appear obscured. Similarly, a policy setting may indicate that target user A can be shown in the image if user B also appears in the image, however, target user A should not be shown in the image if user C appears in the image. Other rules may be specified. An anonymous user may still have some rights, e.g., depending on each policy setting):
receiving a first digital image (Vanhoucke: [Col 7, lines 57-67 – Col 8, lines 1-3], (35) In an embodiment, the input record 202 may correspond to one or more of an image, a collection of images, labels or tags provided with the image, and/or profile information provided in connection with a context or source of that image. For example, system 200 may be implemented for individuals who upload or submit a collection of personal images as part of a photo-sharing site. In one embodiment, the images of the input record 202 have not previously been processed or recognized, and feature extraction 210 identifies image data 212 that corresponds to features of the person or persons in the images of the records 202. As an alternative, the images of the input records 202 may be associated with, for example, previously determined vector signatures that are then identified and used by system 200);
processing said first digital image to obtain first biometric information (Vanhoucke: [Col 5, lines 12-20], (20) As another alternative or addition, another facial feature (=biometric information) that may be used by engine 110 to perform similarity searching may correspond to a type of face shape contained by the face of the query image input 102. For instance, the height and the width of a face, as well as a generalization or quantitative description of an overall head-shape (elongated or round shape) may provide another basis for identifying results 114. This information can be extracted using various means),
comparing said first biometric information to said collection of digital photographs to identify one or more matching photographs that include matching biometric information that matches said first biometric information (Vanhoucke: [Col 2, lines 47-64], The comparison module is configured to compare a query image input of the face with a collection of images of other faces in order to identify one or more faces in the collection that are determined as being similar to the face of the query image input. The query image input comprises image data representing the face determined about the face using at least the text and metadata. [Col 4, lines 50-60], (18) As an alternative or addition to determining feature vectors that are signature identifiers of a person or a face, one or more embodiments provide for use of computer vision and analysis to detect additional visual features from the face of the query image input 102. The terms “face similarity” or “facial similarity” refer the act of retrieving a set of pictures of “result” faces which look similar to a given “query” face picture. In one embodiment, face similarity relies on visual features extracted from the query face, matching those features to similar features of the result faces).
Vanhoucke does not explicitly disclose:
wherein said first biometric information comprises facial recognition information and said facial recognition information is derived from identified nodal points in said first digital image
said computer platform being operatively coupled with a network that enables a group of network users access to said collection of digital photographs;
and restricting access to said matching photographs via said computer platform.
However, in an analogous art, Joseph teaches:
said computer platform being operatively coupled with a network that enables a group of network users access to said collection of digital photographs (Joseph: [0044] In some examples, a profile of a user or other person may include preferences corresponding to how and when their synthesized face “disguise” is applied. In some examples, the user's preferences may include an approved list (whitelist) of certain users (= a group of users) of the interactive environment (e.g., family and/or friends) who are permitted to see their true face, while the user appears disguised with a synthesized face (as described above) for anyone else. In some examples, the user's preferences may include a blocked list (blacklist) (=another group of users) of certain users of the interactive environment who are not permitted to see their true face (e.g., people they dislike or wish to hide from) for which the user appears disguised with a synthesized face (as described above), while the user appears with their true face for anyone else. [0046], to have predetermined approved lists and/or block lists indicating when to replace the person's face with the corresponding synthesized face and/or when not to).
and restricting access to said matching photographs via said computer platform (Joseph: [0045], In some examples, the user's settings may include a blocked list (blacklist) of certain locations in the interactive environment where their true face is not permitted to be shown (e.g., very public areas) for which the user appears disguised with a synthesized face (e.g., as described herein), while the user appears with their true face anywhere else in the interactive environment)
It would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Vanhoucke’s method of identify one or more faces in the collection that are determined as being similar to the face of the query image input by applying Joseph’s method of blocking the access for blacklisted users of the interactive environment who are not permitted to see their true face. The motivation is to provide network-based interactive systems may modify the image data to protect the privacy of the user (Joseph: [0038]).
Vanhoucke in view of Joseph does not explicitly disclose below claim limitation, however in an analogous art Fredinsburg teaches:
by preventing access to of said matching photographs for at least a portion of the group of network users (Fredinsburg: [col 21, lines 9-23], if the target of the search has an account in a social networking and/or identity service, or an employee directory site with a photo added to his or her privacy center, he or she can indicate a "no photo search." (=restriction to access to the his/her photographs) When someone else (search requester) does a search, the search is done in the background. The search routine first checks the privacy preferences, at which point any photos of a person who has not affirmatively expressed a desire to participate, even if present in the index, are not returned as a search result to the search requester….results of an image and/or facial recognition search are not provided to a requester)
A person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, would have found it obvious to modify Vanhoucke in view of Joseph by applying the well-known technique as disclosed by Fredlinburg’s method of applying privacy preference to the person’s account in order to restrict access to his/her photographs. The motivation is to controlling access to the image search and provide privacy protection features with respect to image search. (Fredlinburg: [Col 1, lines 9-10]),
The Vanhoucke in view of Joseph and Fredlinburg does not explicitly disclose:
wherein said first biometric information comprises facial recognition information and said facial recognition information is derived from identified nodal points in said first digital image,
However, in an analogous art Nicholson teaches:
wherein said first biometric information comprises facial recognition information (Nicholson: [Col 9, lines 32-38], (43) In various embodiments, facial recognition solutions may start by detecting a face. Then the facial recognition system may determine, for example, the head's position, size, pose, and unique characteristics. A human face may have various distinguishable landmarks, such as the peaks, valleys, lengths, radius, and other dimensions of various facial features)
and said facial recognition information is derived from identified nodal points in said first digital image (Nicholson: [Col 11, lines 45-48], nodal point extractor 408 creates (=derived) nodal points, such as the 80 nodal points used for facial recognition solutions. Nodal point extractor 408 may also measure the nodal points to provide the correct nodal point measurements)
A person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, would have found it obvious to modify Vanhoucke in view of Joseph and Fredlinburg by applying the well-known technique as disclosed by Nicholson’s method of creating nodal points to provide correct nodal points measurements used for detecting human faces using facial recognition system. The motivation is to enhance privacy via facial feature obfuscation. (Nicholson: [Col 1, lines 7-8]),
Regarding Claim 2, Vanhoucke in view of Joseph, Fredlinburg and Nicholson teaches:
The method of claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above),
wherein the portion of the group of network users includes all network users (Joseph: [0037] Network-based interactive systems allow users (=all network users) to interact with one another over a network, in some cases even when those users are geographically remote from one another).
It would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Vanhoucke’s method of identify one or more faces in the collection that are determined as being similar to the face of the query image input by applying Joseph’s method of allowing users to interact with each other over the network. The motivation is to protecting the privacy of the users (Joseph: [0039]).
Regarding Claim 4, Vanhoucke in view of Joseph, Fredlinburg and Nicholson:
The method of claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above),
This claim contains identical limitations found within that of claim 1 above albeit directed to a different statutory category. For this reason the same grounds of rejection are applied to claim 4.
Furthermore Fredinsburg disclose:
restricting access to said matching photographs via said computer platform by preventing access to wherein said restricting comprises preventing access to one or more first portions of said matching photographs including said matching information by blurring or distorting said first portions (Fredinsburg: [col 21, lines 9-23], if the target of the search has an account in a social networking and/or identity service, or an employee directory site with a photo added to his or her privacy center, he or she can indicate a "no photo search." (=restriction to access to the his/her photographs) When someone else (search requester) does a search, the search is done in the background. The search routine first checks the privacy preferences, at which point any photos of a person who has not affirmatively expressed a desire to participate, even if present in the index, are not returned as a search result to the search requester….results of an image and/or facial recognition search are not provided to a requester)
It would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Vanhoucke’s method of identify one or more faces in the collection that are determined as being similar to the face of the query image input by applying Fredlinburg’s method of applying privacy preference to the person’s account in order to restrict access to his/her photographs. The motivation is to controlling access to the image search and provide privacy protection features with respect to image search. (Fredlinburg: [Col 1, lines 9-10]).
Regarding Claim 7, Vanhoucke in view of Joseph, Fredlinburg and Nicholson:
The method of claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above),
wherein said processing comprises implementing a facial recognition technology (Vanhoucke: [col 10, lines 16-21], (49) In a step 310, the query input image 102 (FIG. 1) is determined or identified. In one embodiment, a face in the image is detected, and an identity is established for the face in the image. This identity may be determined either through user-tagging or through a face recognition process (which can be semi-supervised by the user).
Regarding Claim 8, Vanhoucke in view of Joseph, Fredlinburg and Nicholson:
The method of claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above),
wherein said first biometric information comprises reference spatial information concerning a physical feature of a protected person (Vanhoucke: [Col 4, lines 5062], determining feature vectors that are signature identifiers of a person or a face, one or more embodiments provide for use of computer vision and analysis to detect additional visual features (= biometric information) from the face of the query image input 102. The terms “face similarity” or “facial similarity” refer the act of retrieving a set of pictures of “result” faces which look similar to a given “query” face picture. In one embodiment, face similarity relies on visual features extracted from the query face, matching those features to similar features of the result faces. Those features can include skin tone, hair color, hair length, or a face model such as those used for face recognition).
Regarding Claim 9, Vanhoucke in view of Joseph, Fredlinburg and Nicholson:
The method of claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above),
wherein said processing comprises extracting first feature information from said first digital image (Vanhoucke: [Col 7, lines 16-22], (32) Accordingly, a system 200 may include modules that correspond to analysis 215, characteristic determination 230, and comparison 245. The analysis module 215 may include sub-modules or components of feature extraction 210 and text/metadata extraction 220. The input for system 200 may include records 202 that are associated with individuals)
and deriving a first set of values based on said features (Vanhoucke: [Col 4, lines 5062], determining feature vectors that are signature identifiers of a person or a face, one or more embodiments provide for use of computer vision and analysis to detect additional visual features from the face of the query image input 102. The terms “face similarity” or “facial similarity” refer the act of retrieving a set of pictures of “result” faces which look similar to a given “query” face picture. In one embodiment, face similarity relies on visual features extracted from the query face, matching those features to similar features of the result faces. Those features can include skin tone, hair color, hair length, or a face model such as those used for face recognition).
Regarding Claim 10, Vanhoucke in view of Joseph, Fredlinburg and Nicholson:
The method of claim 9 (see rejection of claim 9 above),
wherein said comparing comprises extracting second feature information to each candidate digital photograph of said collection of digital photographs (Vanhoucke: [Col 2, lines 57-62], The comparison module is configured to compare a query image input of the face with a collection of images of other faces in order to identify one or more faces in the collection that are determined as being similar to the face of the query image input. The query image input comprises image data representing the face).
deriving candidate sets of values for each of said candidate digital photographs (Vanhoucke: [Col 11, lines 45-53], (57) Accordingly, one or more embodiments provide for a data flow that includes establishing an identify of a given face in the query image input 102. The identity may be determined either through user tagging or through a face recognition process (which can be semi-supervised by the user). (58) Next, computer vision algorithms may be executed on the test images to calculate the visual features, such as gender, ethnicity, hair color, hair length, eye color, with/without eye glasses);
and comparing said first set of values to each of said candidate sets of values (Vanhoucke: [Col 2, lines 57-62], The comparison module is configured to compare a query image input of the face with a collection of images of other faces in order to identify one or more faces in the collection that are determined as being similar to the face of the query image input. The query image input comprises image data representing the face).
Regarding Claim 11, this claim contains identical limitations found within that of claim 1 above albeit directed to a different statutory category (system medium). For this reason the same grounds of rejection are applied to claim 11.
Regarding Claim 12, this claim contains identical limitations found within that of claim 2 above albeit directed to a different statutory category (system medium). For this reason the same grounds of rejection are applied to claim 12.
Regarding Claim 14, this claim contains identical limitations found within that of claim 4 above albeit directed to a different statutory category (system medium). For this reason the same grounds of rejection are applied to claim 14.
Regarding Claim 17, this claim contains identical limitations found within that of claim 7 above albeit directed to a different statutory category (system medium). For this reason the same grounds of rejection are applied to claim 17.
Regarding Claim 18, this claim contains identical limitations found within that of claim 8 above albeit directed to a different statutory category (system medium). For this reason the same grounds of rejection are applied to claim18.
Regarding Claim 19, this claim contains identical limitations found within that of claim 9 above albeit directed to a different statutory category (system medium). For this reason the same grounds of rejection are applied to claim 19.
Regarding Claim 20, this claim contains identical limitations found within that of claim 10 above albeit directed to a different statutory category (system medium). For this reason the same grounds of rejection are applied to claim 20.
Regarding Claim 21, Vanhoucke in view of Joseph, Fredlinburg and Nicholson:
The method of claim 4 (see rejection of claim 4 above),
wherein said restricting access comprises (Nicholson [Col 1, lines 47-52], The apparatus where the modifier circuit may include circuitry that detects and obfuscates facial features. Obfuscating the facial features include modifying the facial features to make them unrecognizable to an artificial intelligence. [Col 10, lines 42-46], To protect user privacy, and to discourage tampering, image modifier circuit 306 may be placed in the illustrated pipeline in a position where the image is modified before it is usefully provided to an application layer for example of an operating system of information handling device 102) distorting said first portions (Nicholson: [Col 2, lines 13-12], (6) Implementations may include one or more of the following features. The program product where obfuscating the facial features may include modifying the facial features to make them unrecognizable to an artificial intelligence. Obfuscating the facial features may include identifying a plurality of nodal points and modifying one or more nodal points of the plurality of nodal points. The executable code further may include code to provide a software driver. The plurality of nodal points may include between x and y nodal points) by cropping said first portions (Nicholson: [Col 12, lines 14-16], frame selector 412 selects certain frames and severely distorts those frames, while other frames are left undisturbed (=isolating a portion of an image = cropping certain portion by selecting certain frames). [Col 11, lines 50-60], frame selector 412 select from a plurality of available frames within a video stream, one or more frames for modification. Frames may be selected randomly, pseudo-randomly, at regular intervals, at irregular intervals, or on any other suitable algorithm.)
A person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, would have found it obvious to modify Vanhoucke in view of Joseph and Fredlinburg by applying the well-known technique as disclosed by Nicholson’s method of creating nodal points to provide correct nodal points measurements used for detecting human faces using facial recognition system. The motivation is to enhance privacy via facial feature obfuscation. (Nicholson: [Col 1, lines 7-8]),
Regarding Claim 22, Vanhoucke in view of Nicholson:
The system of claim 14 (see rejection of claim 14 above),
This claim contains identical limitations found within that of claim 21 above albeit directed to a different statutory category (system medium). For this reason the same grounds of rejection are applied to claim 22.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Refer to PTO-892, Notice of References Cited for a listing of analogous art.
HUDGINS (U. S. PGPub. No. 2015/0261995 A1): For surreptitiously stymieing a recognition of facial characteristics by a facial recognition system using a camera, a user wears an object in front of at least one eye, where the object includes a light displacer. The light displacer optically displaces light radially relative to the original light direction, but still parallel to the original light direction so that a view by the eye through the light displacer is not distorted. With the light displacer, there is an apparent position of the eye perceived by the camera which is shifted relative to other features of the face and relative to the actual position of the eye. Consequently, an image of the face obtained by the camera locates the eye at the apparent position which is substantially different from an image which would have been obtained with the actual position of the eye, so that the facial recognition system is stymied.
Karmarkar et al. (U. S. PGPub. No. 2015/0135309 A1): In one exemplary embodiment, a computer-implemented method includes the step of providing an image to a user. The image is provided with a computer display. An eye-tracking data is obtained from the user when the user views the image. The eye-tracking data is obtained with an eye-tracking system. A user attribute is determined based on the eye-tracking data. The user is enabled to access a digital resource when the user attribute is associated with a permission to access the digital resource. The user attribute can be a personhood state. The digital resource can be a web page document. An instruction can be provided to the user regarding a pattern of viewing the image. The pattern of viewing the image can include instructing the user to gaze on a specified sequence of image elements.
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 RUPALI DHAKAD whose telephone number is (571)270-3743. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5:30.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Alexander Lagor can be reached at 5712705143. 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.
/R.D./Examiner, Art Unit 2437
/ALI S ABYANEH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2437
