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 .
Priority
Acknowledgement is made of Applicant’s claim of priority from Foreign Application No. JP2021-033937, filed March 3, 2021 and PCT Application No. PCT/JP2021/040000, filed October 29, 2021.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (“IDS”) filed on September 1, 2023 was reviewed and the listed references were noted.
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.
Claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite a device and method for . Consider method claim 8:
Step 1:
With regard to Step 1, the instant claim is directed to a method or a process; and therefore, the claim is directed to one of the statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A, Prong One:
With regard to 2A, Prong One, the limitations “specifying a face image of a target person from the captured image”, “detecting presence or absence of a wearing object with respect to a face of the target person from the face image having been specified”, “determining a surrounding environment of the target person, based on predetermined reference information” and “outputting information that urges removal or wearing of the wearing object, based on the surrounding environment” as drafted, recite an abstract idea, such as a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations manually and in the mind of a person. That is, a user or person skilled in the art may specify a face in a captured image, determine if the person is wearing an object (i.e., sunglasses, a mask, etc.), determine the surrounding environment of the person, and advise the person to remove or wear the object based on the surrounding environment. This is the concept that falls under the grouping of abstract ideas mental processes, i.e., a concept performed in the human mind, evaluation, judgement, and/or opinion of the user.
Step 2A, Prong Two:
The 2019 PEG defines the phrase “integration into a practical application” to require an additional step or a combination of additional steps in the claim to apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception. In the instant case, with respect to the device claim of claim 1 the mere recitation of a generic controller to perform/store programming instructions of the recited/identified abstract idea does not integrate the identified abstract idea into a practical application. Accordingly, the above-mentioned additional elements/limitations do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application; and therefore, the independent claims recite an abstract idea.
Step 2B:
Because the claims fail under Step 2A, the claims are further evaluated under Step 2B. The claims herein do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, because as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into practical application, the additional elements/limitations to perform the recited steps, amount to no more than insignificant extra-solution activity. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic component cannot provide an inventive concept. Therefore, independent claims 1 and 8 are not patent eligible. In addition, claims 2-7 of the instant application provide limitations that both individually or in combination do not integrate the identified abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more than the identified abstract idea.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-2, 6 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zeng et al. (US 2022/0068109 A1, filed December 30, 2020) in view of Madden et al. (US 2022/0027637 A1, with priority to U.S. Provisional Application No. 63/054,486, field July 21, 2020, which provides sufficient teaching for the subject matter used herein).
Regarding claim 1, Zeng teaches a dialogue device configured to perform a predetermined dialogue, based on a face image included in a captured image, the dialogue device comprising:
a controller configured to perform a control for the dialogue (Zeng, Para. [0094], the mobile device includes at least a processor), wherein
the controller specifies a face image of a target person from the captured image (Zeng, Para. [0022], performing a face detection on an image to determine one or more face areas, where each of the face areas includes a target which has determined as a face),
detects presence or absence of a wearing object with respect to a face of the target person from the face image having been specified (Zeng, Para. [0025], determining a mask wearing status of the target in each of the face areas, where the mask wearing status includes a not-masked-well status, an unmasked status, and a masked status).
Although Zeng teaches releasing an alert corresponding to the mask wearing status of the target in each face area (Zeng, Para. [0029]), Zeng does not explicitly teach the controller “determines a surrounding environment of the target person, based on predetermined reference information” and “causes an output part to output information that urges removal or wearing of the wearing object, based on the surrounding environment”. However, in an analogous field of endeavor, Madden teaches identifying a state of the property (i.e., determining a surrounding environment) which can suggest or be indicative of what actions the computer system should perform (Madden, Para. [0120]). The drone may assess a visitor’s garb or personal protective equipment (PPE) and direct them to take actions based on their garb or PPE. For example, the drown may direct a visitor to don a mask before guiding the person to a particular section of the property, e.g., a location where other persons are located (Madden, Para. [0080]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Zeng with the teachings of Madden by including determining a state of a property (i.e., determine a surrounding environment) and direct a person to don a mask (i.e., urge wearing of the wearing object) when the person is entering a location where other persons are located (i.e., based on the surrounding environment). One having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine these references because doing so would allow for monitoring and performing actions at an environment with persons, as recognized by Madden. Thus, the claimed invention would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date.
Regarding claim 2, Zeng in view of Madden teaches the dialogue device according to claim 1, and further teaches wherein
the reference information includes the captured image (Madden, Para. [0123], the computer system can use sensor data (e.g., images) obtained from cameras installed on the property to determine locations for each of the occupants at the property (i.e., surrounding environment)), and
the controller determines, as the surrounding environment, a situation of another person other than the target person included in the captured image, and urges removal or wearing of the wearing object (Madden, Para. [0080], the drone may direct a visitor to don a mask before guiding the person to a particular section of the property, e.g., a location where other persons are located).
The proposed combination as well as the motivation for combining the Zeng and Madden references presented in the rejection of Claim 1, apply to Claim 2 and are incorporated herein by reference. Thus, the device recited in Claim 2 is met by Zeng in view of Madden.
Regarding claim 6, Zeng in view of Madden teaches the dialogue device according to claim 1, and further teaches wherein the wearing object is a mask (Madden, Para. [0080], the drone may direct a visitor to don a mask before guiding the person to a particular section of the property, e.g., a location where other persons are located).
The proposed combination as well as the motivation for combining the Zeng and Madden references presented in the rejection of Claim 1, apply to Claim 6 and are incorporated herein by reference. Thus, the device recited in Claim 6 is met by Zeng in view of Madden.
Claim 8 recites a method with steps corresponding to the elements of the system recited in Claims 1. Therefore, the recited steps of this claim are mapped to the proposed combination in the same manner as the corresponding elements in its corresponding system claim. Additionally, the rationale and motivation to combine the Zeng and Madden references, presented in rejection of Claim 1, apply to this claim.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zeng et al. (US 2022/0068109 A1, filed December 30, 2020) in view of Madden et al. (US 2022/0027637 A1, with priority to U.S. Provisional Application No. 63/054,486, field July 21, 2020, which provides sufficient teaching for the subject matter used herein), as applied to claims 1-2, 6 and 8 above, and further in view of Iwamoto et al. (US 2017/0124387 A1).
Regarding claim 3, Zeng in view of Madden teaches the dialogue device according to claim 2, as described above.
Although Zeng in view of Madden teaches directing a user to don a mask based on entering a location where other persons are located (Madden, Para. [0080]), they do not explicitly teach “the controller urges removal or wearing of the wearing object, based on orientation of a face of the other person”. Iwamoto teaches determining if an associated person is a collaborative worker based on at least one of positions of persons detected from the captured image, directions of faces of the persons, and distances between the persons (Iwamoto, Para. [0053]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Zeng in view of Madden by replacing the directing a visitor to don a mask based on entering a location where persons are located of Madden with the teachings of Iwamoto of performing a determination based on directions of faces of the persons. One having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine these references because doing so would allow for supervising the environment of a person based on a captured image, as recognized by Iwamoto. Thus, the claimed invention would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zeng et al. (US 2022/0068109 A1, filed December 30, 2020) in view of Madden et al. (US 2022/0027637 A1, with priority to U.S. Provisional Application No. 63/054,486, field July 21, 2020, which provides sufficient teaching for the subject matter used herein), as applied to claims 1-2, 6 and 8 above, and further in view of Eubank et al. (US 2021/0397407 A1, with priority to U.S. Provisional Application No. 63/042,395, filed June 22, 2020, which provides sufficient teaching for the subject matter used herein).
Regarding claim 4, Zeng in view of Madden teaches the dialogue device according to claim 1, and further teaches wherein
the controller urges removal or wearing of the wearing object (Madden, Para. [0080], the drone may direct a visitor to don a mask before guiding the person to a particular section of the property, e.g., a location where other persons are located).
The proposed combination as well as the motivation for combining the Zeng and Madden references presented in the rejection of Claim 1, apply to Claim 4 and are incorporated herein by reference.
Although Zeng in view of Madden teaches using sensor data (e.g., images) to determine locations of persons (Madden, Para. [0123]), they do not explicitly teach “the reference information includes sound around the target person” and the controller “determines, as the surrounding environment, a situation of a person other than the target person from the sound”. However, in an analogous field of endeavor, Eubank teaches a detector may determine whether the user intends to engage in a conversation by determining whether there is speech within the ambient environment that is originating from a sound source other than the user (e.g., another person) (Eubank, Para. [0051]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Zeng in view of Madden with the teachings of Eubank by including determining another person based on speech in the environment originating from a sound source other than the user. One having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine these references because doing so would allow for adjusting a playback or output based on determining another person in the environment, as recognized by Eubank. Thus, the claimed invention would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zeng et al. (US 2022/0068109 A1, filed December 30, 2020) in view of Madden et al. (US 2022/0027637 A1, with priority to U.S. Provisional Application No. 63/054,486, field July 21, 2020, which provides sufficient teaching for the subject matter used herein), as applied to claims 1-2, 6 and 8 above, and further in view of Kamei (US 2023/0139260 A1, with priority to PCT/JP2020/010290, filed March 10, 2020, US PGPub used herein as a translation and for mapping purposes).
Regarding claim 5, Zeng in view of Madden teaches the dialogue device according to claim 1, and further teaches wherein the controller urges removal or wearing of the wearing object (Madden, Para. [0080], the drone may direct a visitor to don a mask before guiding the person to a particular section of the property, e.g., a location where other persons are located).
The proposed combination as well as the motivation for combining the Zeng and Madden references presented in the rejection of Claim 1, apply to Claim 4 and are incorporated herein by reference.
Although Zeng in view of Madden teaches using sensor data (e.g., images) to determine locations of persons (Madden, Para. [0123]), they do not explicitly teach the controller “determines a degree of crowdedness of other persons present around the target person, based on the reference information”. However, in an analogous field of endeavor, Kamei teaches the a determining unit analyzes the first photographed image and determines whether the facial region of the person lies within a specific region in the photographed image or whether the degree of crowding caused by people detected within the photographed image is no lower than a predetermined value. A guiding message may prompt the person to wait where he or she is until the degree of crowding becomes no lower than the predetermined value (Kamei, Para. [0107]-[0108]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Zeng in view of Madden with the teachings of Kamei by including determining a degree of crowding caused by people within the photographed image. One having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine these references because doing so would allow for making a determination and guiding a person based on a degree of crowdedness, as recognized by Kamei. Thus, the claimed invention would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zeng et al. (US 2022/0068109 A1, filed December 30, 2020) in view of Madden et al. (US 2022/0027637 A1, with priority to U.S. Provisional Application No. 63/054,486, field July 21, 2020, which provides sufficient teaching for the subject matter used herein), as applied to claims 1-2, 6 and 8 above, and further in view of Lee et al. (US 2019/0347500 A1) and Kim et al. (US 2021/0404809 A1).
Regarding claim 7, Zeng in view of Madden teaches the dialogue device according to claim 1, as described above.
Although Zeng in view of Madden teaches the wearing object is a mask (Madden, Para. [0080]), they do not explicitly teach “the wearing object is sunglasses” and “the controller urges removal or wearing of the sunglasses”. However, in an analogous field of endeavor, Lee teaches the electronic device may analyze the image to identify whether the user wears sunglasses or patterned contact lenses. Upon identifying that sunglasses have been worn, the electronic device may provide a guide to take off the sunglasses (Lee, Para. [0087]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the device of Zeng in view of Madden with the teachings of Lee by including that the detected wearing object is sunglasses and that the controller urges removal of the sunglasses. One having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine these references because doing so would allow for prompting a user to remove a wearing object in order to perform authentication, as recognized by Lee.
Although Zeng in view of Madden further in view of Lee teaches detecting a user wears sunglasses and providing a guide to take off the sunglasses (Lee, Para. [0087]), they do not explicitly teach “the reference information includes a current time” the controller “determines, based on the current time, whether or not sunlight is in a situation of being able to be incident on the face of the target person, as the surrounding environment”. However, in an analogous field of endeavor, Kim teaches providing calendar information on a data and a time when information is received to use as a parameter for the sun path equation (Kim, Para. [0073]). The latitude, date, and times are put in the sun path equation and the incidence angle information and altitudes of the sunlight is acquired (Kim, Para. [0155]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Zeng in view of Madden further in view of Lee with the teachings of Kim by determining the sunlight incidence angle based on the calendar information (i.e., current time). One having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine these references because doing so would allow for a detection device to use sunlight information, as recognized by Kim. Thus, the claimed invention would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Emma Rose Goebel whose telephone number is (703)756-5582. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30-5.
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, Amandeep Saini can be reached at (571) 272-3382. 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.
/Emma Rose Goebel/Examiner, Art Unit 2662
/AMANDEEP SAINI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2662