DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
2. This is in response to the applicant response filed on 01/23/2026. Accordingly, claims 1-12 are pending and being examined. Claims 1 and 12 are independent form.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
3. 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.
4. 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
5. Claims 1-2 and 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Ryan (US 20230040513, hereinafter “Ryan”).
Regarding claim 1, Ryan discloses a method for filtering subjects subject to facial image processing in a face-tracking environment (the image processing system and method for identifying a user; see abstract), the method comprising:
capturing at least one image using an image capture device (using a plurality of cameras to track and monitor a region of interest (ROI) including a plurality of passengers; see figs.5-7, para.100, and para.112);
defining an inclusion polygon having at least three vertices such that at least one angle formed at least one of said vertices is not a right angle (wherein the ROI is a polygon including a non-right angle; see region 504 of fig.5, region 601 of fig.7, and/or region 701 of fig.7);
identifying a plurality of faces in said at least one image (see fig.7 and para.120: “in some embodiments, the system 100 performs a further step of identifying a sub-region that encloses the characteristic features of a passengers face, also known as feature landmarks, that are identified within the region of interest 701.”);
defining a geometric shape around each said identified plurality of faces, respectively (see 721, 722, 723, 724 of fig.7 and para.120: “Accordingly, the head regions of each of FIGS. 711 to 714 are bounded by sub-region boundary boxes 721 to 724 respectively.”);
excluding from further processing any of said identified faces with a defined geometric shape that falls outside the inclusion polygon or that intersects with the polygon and that fails an inclusion criteria based on an inside portion of the defined geometric shape that falls inside the polygon and an outside portion that falls outside the inclusion polygon (see fig.7 and para.120: “715 has their head is outside the region of interest 701. [...] FIG. 715 and inanimate object 716 are not associated with a boundary box”);
including for further processing any of said identified faces with a defined geometric shape that falls entirely inside the inclusion polygon or that intersects the inclusion polygon and that passes the inclusion criteria (see fig.7 and para.120: “The face landmarks may be used for later biometric identification. [...] Three FIGS. 711, 712, 713 are wholly within the region of interest; one FIG. 714 has their head within the region of interest 701 while at least part of their body is outside the region of interest 701: and a final FIG. 715 has their head is outside the region of interest 701. Accordingly, the head regions of each of FIGS. 711 to 714 are bounded by sub-region boundary boxes 721 to 724 respectively.”); and
performing said further processing on said identified faces to thereby determine an identification-linked property linked to such identified faces (see para.120: “The face landmarks may be used for later biometric identification” and para.123: “the system 100 uses machine learning techniques to identify facial characteristics of each identified passenger”).
Regarding claim 2, Ryan discloses the method of Claim 1, wherein said further processing includes biometric analysis of the identified faces, and the method further comprising: linking the identification-linked property to face-recognition biometrics for a plurality of individuals (“to identify facial characteristics of each identified passenger”; see para.120 and para.123).
Regarding claim 11, Ryan discloses the method of Claim 1, wherein the identification-linked property identifies individuals as having right to admission selected from the set including having a boarding pass to a flight or other mode of transportation, being the bearer of a passport, having right to building access (see para.69: “The database 151 also receives data from other external systems and data sources 152, such as biometric data obtained from security checkpoints, electronic check-in kiosks, electronic boarding gates, or automatic border control gates” and para.70: “If an anomaly is detected, an alert 154 is generated that may be sent to various external systems 152, such as security checkpoints, electronic check-in kiosks, electronic boarding gates, or automatic border control gates.”).
Regarding claim 12, claim 12 is an inherent variation of claim 1, thus it is interpreted and rejected for the reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
6. 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 of this title, 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.
7. Claims 3-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ryan.
Regarding claims 3-6, i.e., defining the inclusion polygon, these features are either disclosed, or rendered obvious by Ryan, see figs.3-7 and corresponding paragraphs.
Regarding claims 7-10, i.e., defining the face geometric shapes within the inclusion polygon, these features are either disclosed, or rendered obvious by Ryan, see figs.3-7 and corresponding paragraphs.
Response to Arguments
8. Applicant’s arguments, filed on 01/23/2026, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
8-1. On pages 2-3 of applicant’s response, applicant argues:
Although Ryan discloses a polygonal region of interest, Ryan's ROI merely defines an area within which entities may be tracked or analyzed. Ryan does not disclose excluding detected faces from further processing when a face-bounding shape intersects a polygon but fails an inclusion criterion based on an inside/outside portion of that shape, as explicitly required by claim 1...
Further, claim 1 requires defining a geometric shape around each identified face and applying an inclusion criterion based on a quantitative or rule-based evaluation of the relationship between the face shape and the inclusion polygon (e.g., sufficient portion or sufficient vertices inside the polygon)...
The examiner respectfully disagrees with the applicant’s arguments. As explained in the rejections of the claims, Ryan, see fig.7 and para.120, clearly discloses excluding the person 715 from further processing (i.e., further face feature extraction) because “their head [face] is outside the [polygonal] region of interest 701” while only performing the further step enclosing extracting facial feature landmarks to the persons 711, 712, 713, and 714 who’s head pass “the inclusion criteria”. Applicant's arguments therefore are unpersuasive.
8-2. On page 4 applicant’s response, applicant submits the differences between claim 1 and Ryan, as shown below:
PNG
media_image1.png
949
860
media_image1.png
Greyscale
However, the examiner respectfully disagrees with the applicant’s arguments. It is because:
Regarding arguments [1]-[2], Ryan’s ROI is a polygonal region which has at least one non-right angle and includes at least a face region for further exacting the features of the face. So, Ryan discloses “identifying a plurality of faces” as well.
Regarding argument [3], as recognized by the applicant, Ryan discloses detecting a bounding box which shows the head region of a person for exacting face features included thereof. The argument is unpersuasive.
Regarding arguments [4]-[5], as explained in Sec. 8-2, Ryan, see fig.7 and para.120, clearly discloses excluding the person 715 from further processing (i.e., further face feature extraction) because “their head [face] is outside the [polygonal] region of interest 701” while only performing the further step enclosing extracting facial feature landmarks to the persons 711, 712, 713, and 714 who’s head pass “the inclusion criteria”. Applicant's arguments therefore are unpersuasive.
Regarding arguments [6], as explained above, Ryan, see para.120, clearly discloses “The face landmarks may be used for later biometric identification” and para.123: “the system 100 uses machine learning techniques to identify facial characteristics of each identified passenger”. It should be noticed that the further processing for extracting face landmarks is only for selected/filtered persons 711, 712, 713, and 714 rather than the person 715. Applicant's arguments therefore are unpersuasive.
9. Therefore, in view of the above reasons, examiner maintains rejections.
Conclusion
10. THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 extension fee 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.
11. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RUIPING LI whose telephone number is (571)270-3376. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30am--5:30pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, HENOK SHIFERAW can be reached on (571)272-4637. 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; 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.
/RUIPING LI/Primary Examiner, Ph.D., Art Unit 2676