DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-3 are currently pending.
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 .
Notice to Pro-Se Applicant
It appears the inventor(s) filed the current application pro se (i.e., without the benefit of representation by a registered patent practitioner). While inventors named as applicants in a patent application may prosecute the application pro se, lack of familiarity with patent examination practice and procedure may result in missed opportunities in obtaining optimal protection for the invention disclosed. The inventor(s) may wish to secure the services of a registered patent practitioner to prosecute the application, because the value of a patent is largely dependent upon skilled preparation and prosecution. The Office cannot aid in selecting a patent practitioner.
A listing of registered patent practitioners is available at https://oedci.uspto.gov/OEDCI/. Applicants may also obtain a list of registered patent practitioners located in their area by writing to Mail Stop OED, Director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, P.O. Box 1450, Alexandria, VA 22313-1450.
MPEP
Throughout the objections and rejections discussed in this rejection, Examiner will refer to the Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (MPEP) and relevant sections. Examiner encourages Applicant to read the cited sections of the MPEP which can be found on the USPTO website.
Contacting Examiner
Applicant is entitled to an interview with the Examiner to discuss the objections and rejections set forth in this rejection and possible paths forward. Applicant is welcome to call Examiner at her phone number 571-272-3589 or use an Automated Interview Request Form to schedule a time for an interview. Resources about interview practice can be found at www.uspto.gov/InterviewPractice . If Applicant wishes to communicate via email, they are encouraged to file an Internet Authorization form (PTO/SB/439). For further guidance on interviews, please see MPEP 713.
Examiner notes she will be out of office from December 24th through January 5th. Applicant is welcome to leave a message for Examiner and she will return all messages promptly upon return to office in the new year.
Specification Objections
I. Abstract
a. Content
Applicant is reminded of the proper content of an abstract of the disclosure.
A patent abstract is a concise statement of the technical disclosure of the patent and should include that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains. The abstract should not refer to purported merits or speculative applications of the invention and should not compare the invention with the prior art.
If the patent is of a basic nature, the entire technical disclosure may be new in the art, and the abstract should be directed to the entire disclosure. If the patent is in the nature of an improvement in an old apparatus, process, product, or composition, the abstract should include the technical disclosure of the improvement. The abstract should also mention by way of example any preferred modifications or alternatives.
Where applicable, the abstract should include the following: (1) if a machine or apparatus, its organization and operation; (2) if an article, its method of making; (3) if a chemical compound, its identity and use; (4) if a mixture, its ingredients; (5) if a process, the steps.
Extensive mechanical and design details of an apparatus should not be included in the abstract. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph within the range of 50 to 150 words in length.
See MPEP § 608.01(b) for guidelines for the preparation of patent abstract.
b. Placement
The abstract of the disclosure does not commence on a separate sheet in accordance with 37 CFR 1.52(b)(4) and 1.72(b). A new abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text.
c. Length
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the abstract is not on a separate page and the abstract is over 150 words. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Examiner suggests Applicant refer to MPEP 608.01(b) to familiarize themselves with the formal rules of the Abstract. Further MPEP 608.01(b)(E) contains several example abstracts.
II. Specification
a. Trademarked Terms
The use of the terms “Facebook” and “Linkedin”, in [0011], which are trade names or marks used in commerce, has been noted in this application. The terms should be accompanied by the generic terminology; furthermore the term should be capitalized wherever it appears or, where appropriate, include a proper symbol indicating use in commerce such as ™, SM , or ® following the term.
Although the use of trade names and marks used in commerce (i.e., trademarks, service marks, certification marks, and collective marks) are permissible in patent applications, the proprietary nature of the marks should be respected and every effort made to prevent their use in any manner which might adversely affect their validity as commercial marks. Please See MPEP 608.01(v).
Drawings
Examiner notes that Applicant has not filed any drawings associated with Application.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-3 are objected to because of the following informalities. Appropriate correction is required.
I. Each claim must be a singular sentence.
Per MPEP 608.01(m) “Each claim begins with a capital letter and ends with a period. Periods may not be used elsewhere in the claims except for abbreviations.” Here, Applicant has provided several sentences in each claim, correction is required. Examiner suggests reading the claim format of the recited references on the US PTO-892 provided for examples of proper claim formatting.
II. Dependent Claims
A series of singular dependent claims is permissible in which a dependent claim refers to a preceding claim which, in turn, refers to another preceding claim.
A claim which depends from a dependent claim should not be separated by any claim which does not also depend from said dependent claim. It should be kept in mind that a dependent claim may refer to any preceding independent claim. In general, applicant's sequence will not be changed. See MPEP § 608.01(n).
Here, Applicant has provided three separate independent claims. Examiner suggests making claim 1 an independent claim having 2 dependent claims which incorporate claim 1 by reference.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
I. 35 U.S.C 112(b)
Claims 1-3 are rejected as failing to define the invention in the manner required by 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
The claim(s) are narrative in form and replete with indefinite language. The structure which goes to make up the device must be clearly and positively specified. The structure must be organized and correlated in such a manner as to present a complete operative device. The claim(s) must be in one sentence form only. Note the format of the claims in the patent(s) cited.
1. Claim 1 line 2 recites “the head and face of the individual”, the head and face lacks antecedent basis. Every time a new element is introduced it should be preceded by “a” or “an” and then can later be referred back to as “the.”
2. Claim 2 line 1 recites “the faceprints”, this lacks antecedent basis. Faceprints are introduced in claim 1, but because claim 2 fails to depend from claim 1 “the faceprints” now lack antecedent basis.
3. Claim 2 line 4 recites “the faceprint data”, this lacks antecedent basis. Claim 2 previously introduces “the faceprints”, it is unclear if the “faceprint data” and the “faceprints” are the same. If they are, Applicant is encouraged to use consistent nomenclature for elements throughout the claims.
4. Claim 2 line 4 recites “the head and features”, this lacks antecedent basis.
5. Claim 3 line 1 recites “the faceprint”, this lacks antecedent basis.
6. Claim 3 line 1 recites “the OTD”, this lacks antecedent basis.
7. Claim 3 line 2 recites “the likely ethnic origin”, this lacks antecedent basis.
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 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to the mental process of determining the ethnic origin of an individual without significantly more. Throughout this rejection Examiner will refer to the two-step analysis of claim eligibility which can be found in MPEP 2106. The analysis follows the flow chart pictured below.
PNG
media_image1.png
743
614
media_image1.png
Greyscale
I. Claim 1
Under step 1, the claims satisfy step 1 as they are directed to a process. Examiner notes that only claim 1 is positively recited as a method. For the purposes of examination, claims 2 and 3 are also interpreted as method claims as Examiner believes Applicant intended to claim a single inventive processes.
Under step 2A prong 1, claim 1 recites the mental steps of “determine the ethnic origin of an individual from images of the head and face of the individual…creates a faceprint (numeric values corresponding to facial features) of an individual from images of his head and face.” These steps could practically be performed as a mental process by one of ordinary skill in the art by observing an imaging and determining facial features of an individual.
Under step 2A prong 2, claim 1 recites additional elements of “using face recognition technology” and “ These facial features are eye color, eye shape, skin tone, hair color, ear shape, nose shape, mouth shape, cheek bone shape, jaw shape, and head shape.” These fail to integrate the claim into a practical application. The facial recognition technology is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to generic computer processing component. The recited facial features amount to mere data gathering. These fail to integrate a claim into a practical application.
Under step 2B, claim 1 recites no additional features which amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
II. Claim 2
Under step 1, the claims satisfy step 1 as they are directed to a process. Examiner notes that only claim 1 is positively recited as a method. For the purposes of examination, claims 2 and 3 are also interpreted as method claims as Examiner believes Applicant intended to claim a single inventive processes.
Under step 2A prong 1, the claim recites the mental steps “groups individuals and their faceprints with their ethnic origins and towns of origin”, “performs computerized analyses on the faceprint data that takes into account the head and facial features of the individuals and the ethnic origins and towns of origin of the individual” , and “ produces typical faceprints and facial features of the towns of origin with variations from the typical faceprints and features.” These steps could practically be performed by one of ordinary skill in the art learning facial features of distinct ethnic groups over time.
Under step 2A prong 2, the claim recites addition limitation “database of the faceprints of individuals around the world with their corresponding ethnic origins and towns of origin.” This is mere data gathering and fails to integrate the claim into a practical application.
Under step 2B, the claim fails to recite any additional elements which would amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
III. Claim 3
Under step 1, the claims satisfy step 1 as they are directed to a process. Examiner notes that only claim 1 is positively recited as a method. For the purposes of examination, claims 2 and 3 are also interpreted as method claims as Examiner believes Applicant intended to claim a single inventive processes.
Under step 2A prong 1, the claim recites the mental steps “takes the faceprint of an individual and compares the faceprint to the OTD to determine the likely ethnic origin and town of origin of the individual” , “takes the faceprint of an individual and searches the OTD to find look-a-likes (other individuals who look similar to the individual) and possible relatives of the individual. These steps could practically be performed as a mental process by one of ordinary skill in the art browsing a database of facial images.
Under step 2A prong 2, the claim recites additional limitations of possible industries in which the steps of step 2A prong 1 may be use (genealogy, academic research, employment, social media, artificial intelligence, entertainment, law enforcement, and government intelligence). These potential uses are recited at a high level of generality and fail to integrate the claim into a practical application.
Under step 2B, the claim fails to recite any additional limitations which would amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Satoshi (“Ethnicity Estimation with Facial Images”). Examiner notes that mapping to the prior art is indicated in italics below.
Regarding claim 1,Satoshi teaches:
A method that uses computerized processes and facial recognition technology to determine the ethnic origin of an individual from images of the head and face of the individual. (Satoshi, Abstract, This paper addresses a novel approach for ethnicity classification with facial images). Using facial recognition technology, Origins Technology – Facial Feature Identification (OT-FFI) creates a faceprint (numeric values corresponding to facial features) of an individual from images of his head and face. These facial features are eye color, eye shape, skin tone, hair color, ear shape, nose shape, mouth shape, cheek bone shape, jaw shape and head shape. (Satoshi, Section 2.2, Of the characteristics outlined in Table 1, the most critical characteristics in determining ethnicity are thought to be the facial organs such as eye, nose and lips, and the color of the skin….In this paper we used gabor features which are not light sensitive for facial organ characteristics. Please also See Table 1 for a list of the facial features which include eyes, nose , lips, face shape, hair, and skin)
Regarding claim 2, Satoshi teaches:
The Origins Technology Database (OTD) is a database of the faceprints of individuals around the world with their corresponding ethnic origins and towns of origin. The OTD groups individuals and their faceprints by their towns of origins and performs computerized analyses on the faceprint data that takes into account the head and facial features of the individuals and the ethnic origins and towns of origin of the individuals. (Satoshi, Section 4.1, For the ethnicity estimation experiment, we collected 1991 images in total, consisting of facial image data we collected ourselves, as well as image from the HOIP database and others. See also Table 2, “For Learning” images associated with their ethnic group ) OT-FFI technology and method then produces typical faceprints and facial features of the towns of origin with variations from the typical faceprints and features. (Satoshi, Section 3.3 there K(.,.) is a kernel function (typical faceprint) and we can determine to which class the inputting data x belongs through f(x)))
Regarding claim 3, Satoshi teaches:
OT-FFI takes the faceprint of an individual and compares the faceprint to the OTD to determine the likely ethnic origin and town of origin of the individual. (Satoshi, Section 3.3 there K(.,.) is a kernel function (typical faceprint) and we can determine to which class the inputting data x belongs through f(x)))OT-FFI takes the faceprint of an individual and searches the OTD to find look-a-likes (other individuals who look similar to the individual) and possible relatives of the individual. (Satoshi, Section 3.3 there K(.,.) is a kernel function (typical faceprint) and we can determine to which class the inputting data x belongs through f(x))) OT-FFI technology is useful for genealogy, academic research, employment, social media, artificial intelligence, entertainment, law enforcement and government intelligence. For genealogy purposes, a genealogy company would be able to use OT-FFI for their members to establish their ethnic origins and likely towns of origin from images of their heads and faces. They would also be able to provide their members with look-a-likes and other members who might be related to them. (Satoshi Table 3, ethnicity estimation results. See Also Section 3.3 there K(.,.) is a kernel function (typical faceprint) and we can determine to which class the inputting data x belongs through f(x)) For social media purposes, a social media company would be able to use OT-FFI to provide their members with their ethnic origins and likely towns of origin from images of their heads and faces. They would also be able to provide their members with look-a-likes and other members who might be related to them. (Satoshi Table 3, ethnicity estimation results. See Also Section 3.3 there K(.,.) is a kernel function (typical faceprint) and we can determine to which class the inputting data x belongs through f(x)) For artificial intelligence purposes, a technology company would be able to use OT-FFI with their artificial intelligence program to establish their customers’ nationality and ethnic origins and customize their services to the culture of their customers. For government agency purposes, government agencies would be able to use OT-FFI to discover the likely ethnic origins and towns of origin of individuals from images of their heads and faces with individuals that are not currently in the agency’s existing facial recognition database. They would also be able to use OT-FFI to make lists of likely relatives of the individuals. (Satoshi Table 3, ethnicity estimation results. See Also Section 3.3 there K(.,.) is a kernel function (typical faceprint) and we can determine to which class the inputting data x belongs through f(x)) The ethnic origins, towns of origin and lists of likely relatives would be useful information to the government agency for their investigative purposes. (Satoshi Table 3, ethnicity estimation results. See Also Section 3.3 there K(.,.) is a kernel function (typical faceprint) and we can determine to which class the inputting data x belongs through f(x))
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Molly K Wilburn whose telephone number is (571)272-3589. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-4pm.
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, Emily Terrell can be reached at (571) 270-3717. 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.
/Molly Wilburn/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2666