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, 11-12, 21-22 are amended.
Claims 3, 5-6, 13, 15-16 are cancelled.
Claims 1-2, 4, 7-12, 14, 17-22 are pending.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 02/26/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 02/26/2026 have been fully considered.
Applicant’s arguments, see page 1, filed 02/26/2026 with respect to claims 1 and 11 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The claim interpretation 112(f) of 09/11/2025 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, page 1, filed 02/26/2026, with respect to claims 1 and 11 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The claim objection of 09/11/2025 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s argument with respect to the amended limitation of “…preventing access to entireties of said matching photographs” is moot in view of a new ground of rejection”.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 2, 4, 7-12, 14, and 17-22 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 1 and 11 are unclear for reciting “entireties of said matching photographs” because it is not reasonably certain what additional limitation the term “entireties” imposes relative to preventing access to the photographs themselves.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 7-12, 14, and 17-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
The written description requirement is satisfied only if the specification reasonably conveys to one of ordinary skill in the art that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention as of the filing date. See MPEP §2163 and §2161.01. Possession may be shown by disclosure of sufficient relevant identifying characteristics such as structure, function, or other properties, or by disclosure of a representative number of species within a claimed genus so that one skilled in the art can recognize that the inventor invented what is claimed. Where a claim is directed to a broad genus, the specification must either disclose a representative number of species within the scope of the genus or structural features common to the members of the genus so that a person of ordinary skill in the art can visualize or recognize the members of the genus. See MPEP §2161.01 and LizardTech v. Earth Resource Mapping, Inc., 424 F.3d 1336, 1346, 76 USPQ2d 1731, 1733 (Fed. Cir. 2005).
Independent claims 1, 4, 11, and 14 recite, inter alia, “processing said first digital image to obtain first biometric information” and “comparing said first biometric information to biometric information from individual photographs from said collection of digital photographs…” to identify matching photographs. The claims therefore broadly encompass obtaining and using biometric information derived from a digital image without limitation as to the particular biometric modality or technique used to generate such biometric information.
However, the specification primarily describes the extraction of facial recognition features from an image, such as identifying facial landmarks and deriving measurements or geometric relationships between facial features (e.g. distances between the eyes, width of the nose, spacing and orientation of facial features) which are then converted into sets of values for comparison. For example, the Specification [see ¶6] explains that the facial recognition information may involve identifying nodal points and obtaining measurements or relative geometric information relating to such points, which are then stored as sets of values for use in matching operations.
The specification does not describe a representative number of distinct biometric modalities that could be derived from digital images, nor does it disclose structural or algorithmic characteristics common to the full scope of biometric identification techniques encompassed by the claims. Instead, the disclosure is directed to a particular implementation based on facial feature measurements and related facial recognition techniques. Consequently, the specification provides disclosure of a single species or limited subset of species within the much broader genus of “biometric information” recited in the claims.
Because the claims encompass any manner of obtaining biometric information from a digital image, including biometric modalities and extraction techniques not described in the specification, the disclosure does not reasonably convey to one of ordinary skill in the art that the inventor had possession of the full scope of the claimed genus at the time of filing. As explained in LizardTech, disclosure of a single method for achieving a result does not support claims that broadly cover all methods of achieving the result. See MPEP §2161.01.
Accordingly, the specification, as originally filed, does not provide adequate written description support for the full scope of the claimed limitation requiring processing a digital image to obtain biometric information, and the claims therefore fail to satisfy the written description requirement of 35 U.S.C. §112(a).
Claims 2, 3, 7-10, 17-22 depend on independent claims 1, 4, 11, and 14 and do not add any features that would make the claims statutory under 35 U.S.C. §112(a).
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 7-12, 14, and 17-22 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
In claims 1, 4, 11, and 14, the term “matching information” renders the claims indefinite because it is unclear what constitutes the claimed information and how it differs from the “biometric information” recited elsewhere in the claims. The claims do not specify whether the “matching information” refers to biometric feature data extracted from the photographs, metadata associated with photographs, stored biometric templates, or some other type of information. Because the claims fail to define the nature of the source of the “matching information,” the scope of the claims is unclear.
Independent claims 1 and 11 further recite preventing access for “a portion of the group of network users.” The term “portion” renders the claim indefinite because the claims do not specify how this subset of users is determined or defined. It is unclear whether the “portion” refers to a predetermined group, a dynamically determined group, users meeting certain criteria, or any arbitrary subset of users. Without any objective boundaries defining the subset, the scope of the limitation is uncertain.
In claims 2 and 12, the limitation “wherein said restricting comprises preventing access to entireties of said matching photographs for the entire group of network users” appears to contradict the earlier limitation in claims 1 and 11 that requires: “restricting access to said matching photographs via said computer platform by preventing access to entireties of said matching photographs for a portion of the group of network users”. Claims 2 and 12 incorporate the limitations of claim 1 and 11 by reference, so a correct reading of claims 2 and 12 would include both limitations. However, both limitations appear to contradict each other as it is uncertain if access is prevented for a portion of the group of network users or for “the entire group of network users”. Applicant could overcome this particular rejection of claims 2 and 12 by amending the claim to read: “wherein the portion of the group of network users includes all networks users”.
Claims 2, 3, 7-10, 17-22 depend on independent claims 1, 4, 11, and 14 and do not add any features that would make the claims statutory under 35 U.S.C. §112(b).
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 removed, 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.
“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.
“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”), and further 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”).
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 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:
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 entireties of said matching photographs for 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)
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 2, Vanhoucke in view of Joseph teaches:
The method of claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above),
wherein said restricting comprises preventing access to entireties of said matching photographs for the entire 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)
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 4, Vanhoucke in view of Joseph and Fredinsburg:
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 and Fredlinburg:
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 and Fredlinburg:
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 and Fredlinburg:
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 and Fredlinburg:
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 and Fredlinburg:
The method of claim 4 (see rejection of claim 4 above),
wherein said modifying comprises (Joseph: [0105], An image modifier 610 of the imaging system (e.g., of the server(s) 205 and/or of the user device 210) generates the modified image 615 by modifying the image 510 to use the pixelated face 617 for the user 520 in place of the face 525 of the user 520. Joseph: [0109], The profile identifier 245 identifies that the face 525 in the image 510 belongs to the user 520, and identifies (e.g., retrieves or creates) the profile of the user 520) cropping said first portions (Joseph: [0109], An image modifier 630 of the imaging system (e.g., of the server(s) 205 and/or of the user device 210) generates the modified image 635 by modifying the image 510 to use an avatar face 637 in place of the face 525 of the user 520. The avatar face 637 (=cropped image) is illustrated as a smiley face, but can be another type of cartoonish, unrealistic, or stylized face. In some examples, the avatar face 637 may include an image. For instance, the image modifier 630 can overlay the avatar face 637 over the face 525 of the user 520 to generate the modified image 635. [0111] FIG. 6D is a conceptual diagram 600D illustrating generation of a modified image by using inpainting 647 in place of the user 520. [0111], An image modifier 640 of the imaging system (e.g., of the server(s) 205 and/or of the user device 210) generates the modified image 645 by modifying the image 510 to use inpainting 647 to replace the area of the image 510 depicting the user 520 (or a portion thereof, such as the face 525) with content that the inpainting 647 infers is behind the user 520 (e.g., background) based on background areas around the area depicting the user 520. For instance, the image modifier 640 can perform inpainting 647 using pixel interpolation, and, in some examples, trained ML model(s) (e.g., the trained ML model(s) 277). In the modified image 645, inpainted lines are drawn as dashed lines (=cropped image).)
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]).
Regarding Claim 22, Vanhoucke in view of Joseph:
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.
Murphy et al. (U. S. PGPub No. 2021/0342473 A1): A method executed by a computer includes receiving an image from a client device. A facial recognition technique is executed against an individual face within the image to obtain a recognized face. Privacy rules are applied to the image, where the privacy rules are associated with privacy settings for a user associated with the recognized face. A privacy protected version of the image is distributed, where the privacy protected version of the image has an altered image feature.
Buscemi et al. (U. S 2022/0121764 A1): Methods and apparatus for processing group images for distribution are described. Images corresponding to a group may be and sometimes are modified differently prior to being supplied to members of the group than when being supplied to entities which are not members of the group to which the image corresponds. Images of group members maybe and sometimes are replaced. Group members can provide an image to be used in the replacement process so that multiple group images which include a similar user determined image of the individual. This can make it appear that the same individual is present in multiple different group images while still not providing visual details of the actual individual in the group images.
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
/ALEXANDER LAGOR/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2437