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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
2. 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 05/04/2026 has been entered.
3. In the applicant’s submission, claims 1, 17, and 18 were amended and received on 05/20/2026. Accordingly, claims 1-18 are pending and being examined. Claims 1, 17, and 18 are independent form.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
4. 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.
5. 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.
6. Claims 1-8, 11, and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sung et al (US 2006/0291001, hereinafter “Sung”) in view of Lerdsudwichai et al (“Tracking multiple people with recovery from partial and total occlusion”, Pattern Recognition, 2005, hereinafter “Lerdsudwichai”).
Regarding claim 1, Sung discloses an image processing apparatus (the method and the apparatus for detecting an occluded face and discrimination an illegal user in images; see figs.8-9 and abstract) comprising
at least one processor; and at least one memory coupled to the at least one processor, the memory storing instructions (these hardware related features are inherent in the apparatus of Sung) that, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to:
detect first face information of a first person from an image; obtain at least see “detect facial region 817” of fig.8A and para.62: “In operation 817, a facial region is detected from the k-th frame image [of a person].”); see “is facial region detected? 819” of fig.8A and para.62: “In operation 819, it is determined whether a facial region is detected [in the input frame image].”); and
perform face authentication of the first person, when it is determined that the face of the first person is not occluded by part of the first person if an occluded face is not detected and the thresholds passed steps 829, 833, and 837, then the current user is authorized as a normal user; see 825->831->929->833->837->839 in figs.8A-8B; see para.61-para.65);
wherein the first posture information and second posture information include a hand see para.6: “the images of the eyes and the mouth are not accurately detected when a user blocks a portion of the face with a hand”).
As can be see, the mere difference between the claimed inventions and the apparatus of Sung is: Sung does not explicitly disclose: [1] wherein the face of the person in the image is blocked by another person different from the person and [2] wherein the first posture information and second posture information include at least one of shoulder, elbow, hip, knee, or ankle information. However, in the same field of endeavor, Lerdsudwichai teaches those two features. Specifically, in the Abstract, Lerdsudwichai states, “we present an algorithm for tracking faces of multiple people even in cases of total occlusion”; wherein “the robustness of the algorithm, and its capability to correctly track multiple people even when faces are temporarily occluded by other faces or by other objects in the scene.” In sec. 2.3.1, paragraph 1, Lerdsudwichai discloses “[a] face can become occluded by another tracked face or by another object. In the first case, where the face is occluded by another tracked face, the occlusion detection is achieved using an occlusion grid. The locations that the objects occupy in the image are recorded into the occlusion grid. This grid is used to determine the locations of the moving objects and their overlap.” As shown in the top left image of fig.7 in Lerdsudwichai, wherein the face of the person is occluded by the elbow of the person. As shown in the third image of fig.9 in Lerdsudwichai, wherein the face of the person is occluded by the shoulder of another person.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention was made to incorporate the teachings of Lerdsudwichai into the teachings of Sung and track/identify a face of a person occluded by another tracked face taught by Lerdsudwichai in a surveillance video recoded at ATMs taught by Sung. Suggestion or motivation for doing so would have been to “correctly track multiple people even when faces are temporarily occluded by other faces or by other objects in the scene” and “use the color distribution of the face as well as the color distribution of the clothes to identify the correct face after occlusion” as taught by Lerdsudwichai, cf., Abstract, and Sec. 2.3.,2, paragraph 1. Therefore, claim 1 is unpatentable over Sung in view of Lerdsudwichai.
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Sung and Lerdsudwichai discloses the image processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the instructions, when executed by the processor, further cause the processor to determine a state of the face of the first person, in a case where the face of the first person is occluded by part of the first person or part of the second person in an image captured before the image from which the first person is detected; and perform face authentication of the first person, using a model that is based on the state of the face of the first person (Sung, see 825->831->829->833->835 in figs.8A-8B where the current user is an illegal user since the face of the user is occluded by the subject’s self.).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Sung and Lerdsudwichai discloses the image processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein, when the processor determines that the face of the first person is occluded by part of the first person or part of the second person, the
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Sung and Lerdsudwichai discloses the image processing apparatus according to claim 2, wherein the instructions, when executed by the processor, further cause the processor to
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Sung and Lerdsudwichai discloses the image processing apparatus according to claim 2, wherein the model is a model for extracting a feature of the face of the first person from the image from which the first person is detected (Sung, see “detect facial region 817” of fig.8A).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Sung and Lerdsudwichai discloses the image processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the instructions, when executed by the processor, further cause the processor to associate face information and posture information of a same person in the image (Sung, see “detect facial region 817” and “detect occluded face 823” of fig.8A).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Sung and Lerdsudwichai discloses the image processing apparatus according to claim 1,wherein the first posture information includes positions of joint points of the first person and the second posture information includes positions of joint points of the second person, and wherein the instructions, when executed by the processor, further cause the processor determine whether the face of the first person is occluded by part of the first person or part of the second person, based on the first face information and a reliability of one of the joint point of the first person in the first posture information and the joint point of the second person in the second posture information (Sung, see para.6: “In this situation, the images of the eyes and the mouth are not accurately detected when a user blocks a portion of the face with a hand,”).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Sung and Lerdsudwichai discloses the image processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the instructions, when executed by the processor, further cause the processor todetermine whether the face of the first person is occluded by part of the first person or part of the second person, based on a distance between a position of the face of the first person and a position of one of a joint point of the first person in the first posture information and a joint point of the second person in the second posture information (Sung, see para.6: “In this situation, the images of the eyes and the mouth are not accurately detected when a user blocks a portion of the face with a hand,”).
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Sung and Lerdsudwichai discloses the image processing apparatus according to claim 2, wherein the state of the face of the first person is at least one of a state in which the face of the first person is wearing a face mask, a state in which the face of the first person is wearing sunglasses, and a state in which the face of the first person is wearing lipstick (Sung, see para.56: “the occluded facial image class includes facial images in which higher regions or lower regions are unidentifiable because the faces are partially occluded by sunglasses, masks, or scarves.”).
Regarding claims 16-18, each of which parallels claim 1 and is an inherent variation of claim 1, thus it is interpreted and rejected for the reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 1.
7. Claims 9-10, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sung in view of Lerdsudwichai and further in view of Mostafa et al (CN110555364, hereinafter “Mostafa”). A machine translated English version (called CN110555364-Eng) of document CN110555364 wa provided by the examiner with the previous office action.
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Sung and Lerdsudwichai does not explicitly disclose the claimed features. However, in the same field of endeavor, Mostafa teaches a comparing unit which is configured to compare a feature of the face of the first person with a feature of a face of a registered first person (see CN110555364-Eng, pg.2, lines 33-44: “[w]hen the user attempts to use the facial recognition authentication to obtain access to the device, it can compare the characteristic of one or more captured user images with each registered configuration file on the device. The user may obtain access to the device by having a matching score exceeding at least one of an unlock threshold value for the face recognition authentication process and a registration configuration file.”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention was made to incorporate the teachings of Mostafa into the teachings of the combination of Sung and Lerdsudwichai and calculate a matching score by comparing the characteristic of one or more captured user images with each registered configuration file on the device taught by Mostafa for people identification and people tracking. Suggestion or motivation for doing so would have been to “adapt to the change of the facial feature of the authorized user with time” as taught by Mostafa, cf., Page 2, lines 1-6. Therefore, the claim is unpatentable.
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Sung, Lerdsudwichai, and Mostafa discloses the image processing apparatus according to claim 9, to compare whether the face of the first person is the same as the face of the registered first person, based on a similarity between the feature of the face of the first person and the feature of the face of the registered first person (Mostafa, ibid.).
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Sung, Lerdsudwichai, and Mostafa discloses the image processing apparatus according to claim 9, further to display a comparison result of the comparing unit with a method that depends on the comparison result (this feature is obvious and straightforward for one of ordinary skill in the art based on the teachings of the combination of Sung, Lerdsudwichai, and Mostafa.).
8. Claims 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sung in view of Lerdsudwichai and further in view of Xu et al (WO 2020015477, hereinafter “Xu”). A machine translated English version (called WO2020015477-Eng) of document WO2020015477 is provided by the examiner with this office action.
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Sung and Lerdsudwichai does not explicitly disclose, setting the first person as a marked person, in a case where it is determined that a state in which the face of the first person is occluded by part of the first person or part of the second person is continuous. However, in the same field of endeavor, Xu teaches: “At 310, the user is prompted on the terminal device 1 to enter the user's mobile phone number. After the user inputs a mobile phone number on the terminal device 1, the terminal device 1 sends the user's mobile phone number to the identification terminal device.” See fig.3 of WO2020015477, and WO2020015477-Eng, pg.11, lines 16-19. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention was made to incorporate the teachings of Xu into the teachings of the combination of Sung and Lerdsudwichai and set a user and notice a user taught by Xu for user identification. Suggestion or motivation for doing so would have been to identify a user in a situation including “at least one of glasses detection, shielding detection and face quality evaluation detection” as taught by Xu, see Abstract. Therefore, the claim is unpatentable.
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Sung, Lerdsudwichai, and Xu discloses the image processing apparatus according to claim 13, further notify a user terminal that the first person is set as a marked person (Xu, see 361, 371, 381, and 391 of fig.3; see WO2020015477-Eng, pg.11, line 41—pg.12, line 22).
Regarding claim 15, the combination of Sung, Lerdsudwichai, and Xu discloses the image processing apparatus according to claim 13, wherein the authentication unit changes a face authentication method of the first person set for the marked person (Xu, ibid.).
Response to Arguments
9. Applicant’s arguments, with respects to claims 1, 17, and 18, filed on 05/20/2026, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On page 8, applicant argues that the combination of Sung and Lerdsudwichai does not disclose “wherein the first posture information and second posture information include at least one of shoulder, elbow, hip, knee, or ankle information” as recited by the claims.
The examiner respectfully disagrees with that. As explained in the rejections of the claims, one hand, Sung, see par.6, discloses “In this situation, the images of the eyes and the mouth are not accurately detected when a user blocks a portion of the face with a hand”. On the other hand, as shown in the top left image of fig.7 in Lerdsudwichai, wherein the face of the person is occluded by the elbow of the person. Likewise, as shown in the third image of fig.9 in Lerdsudwichai, wherein the face of the person is occluded by the shoulder of another person. As such, the combination of Sung and Lerdsudwichai discloses not only wherein the first face is occluded by a hand but also wherein the first face is occluded by a shoulder or an elbow. The arguments are not persuasive.
Conclusion
10. 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.
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, 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
Prosecution Insights