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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 1-5, 7, 11, 12, and 17-19, are 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.
Claim 1 states, “providing a user interface for setting a time interval, the time interval causing the information system to control the camera to periodically capture a video of a user of the information system;receiving a user input of the time interval via the input device”, and later states “controlling the camera to periodically capture a second or subsequent video of a second or subsequent user using the information system at a second or subsequent point of time later than the first point of time”.It is unclear if the periodically capture mentioned the second time in the claim is the same as the first based on the user set interval. The claim discloses the user setting and interval, but does not reference this interval again. It is unclear if the interval is time between captures, or perhaps the time of capture, as claimed in the prior version of the claims. This renders the claim indefinite. The same issue is repeated in claim 11.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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.
Claims 1-5, 7, 11, 12, and 17-19, as best understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LV, CN108038363A, in view of Guo, CN107657222A, in further view of Enomoto, CN104063050A, each outlined using the previously supplied translations, in still further view of Doi, USPN 2021/0319126.
With regard to claims 1, 11, and 17, LV discloses a user access control method for an information system, including processing login of a first user for authenticating the first user and permitting the first user to use the information system (page 8 step 201), the information system including a camera, an input device configured to receive a user input for controlling the information system, and an output device configured to display information generated by the information system, providing a user interface for setting a time interval, the time interval causing the information system to control the camera to periodically capture a video of a user of the information system (page 5), receiving a user input of the time interval via the input device (pages 7-8), upon processing the login, controlling the camera to capture a first video of the first user at a first point of time (page 8 step 201), managing the captured first video of the first user as a reference video image (page 8 step 201), extracting reference feature information from the reference video image captured at the first point of time and storing the reference feature information (page 8 step 201), controlling the camera to periodically capture, for the time interval, a second or subsequent video of a second or subsequent user using the information system at a second or subsequent point of time later than the first point of time (page 8 step 202), managing the captured second or subsequent video of the second or subsequent user as a target video image, extracting target feature information from the target video image (page 8 step 202-203), comparing the target feature information with the reference feature information (page 8 step 205), controlling the information system to restrict the second or subsequent user from using the information system by blocking an input of the input device or an output of the output device in response to determining that the a facial region of interest from the target video image is not extracted or determining that the second or subsequent user using the information system at the second or subsequent point of time is not the same as the first user (page 8 step 207 and 209-210, page 9), and checking whether or not the second or subsequent user is the same as the first user using the target feature information (page 8 step 205-210, page 9). LV does not disclose deleting the target feature information upon the second or subsequent user being same as the first user. Guo discloses a method of using facial recognition to authenticate a user (abstract, page 5, page 8) similar to that of LV, and further discloses deleting target facial recognition data after matching it (page 5, page 8). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the instant effective filing date, to delete the target feature data of the second user of LV, as taught by Guo for the stated motivation of Guo, to save storage space (page 5, page 8). LV discloses using a video, as outlined above, but does not go into much detail on it. Enomoto discloses a method using facial recognition to identify a user (0044, 0049), similar to that of LV and Guo, and further discloses analyzing each frame (0044). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the instant effective filing date, to use the video frame detection analysis of Enomoto in the method of LV in view of Guo, for the motivation of obtaining more information, more potential images, and obtaining better analytical results for improved identification and authentication. LV, Guo, and Enomoto do not disclose determining whether the facial region of interest from the target video image is extracted or not, generating an error message in response to the facial region being not extracted, determining that the second or subsequent user is absent based on the generated error message, and restricting the second or subsequent user from using the information system by blocking the input of the input device or the output of the output device based on the second or subsequent user being absent. Doi discloses a system of periodically checking a user’s facial information to maintain security (0034, 0052), similar to that of LV in view of Guo in further view of Enomoto, and further discloses determining whether the facial region of interest from the target video image is extracted or not (0052), generating an error message in response to the facial region being not extracted, determining that the second or subsequent user is absent based on the generated error message (0052, Fig. 12), and restricting the second or subsequent user from using the information system by blocking the input of the input device or the output of the output device based on the second or subsequent user being absent (0052, Fig. 12). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the instant effective filing date, to secure the of system of LV in view of Guo in further view of Enomoto, when the user was absent, as taught by Doi, for the motivation of increasing security and preventing people outside the camera view from viewing information on the screen.
With regard to claims 2-5, 12, 18, and 19, LV in view of Guo in further view of Enomoto in still further view of Doi discloses the method of claim 1, as outlined above, and Enomoto further discloses extracting a region of the face (0046), a skin region boundary (0046, 0047), glasses detection (0048, 0051), and mask detection (0048, 0051). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the instant effective filing date, to use the face region, skin region boundary, glasses, and mask detection facial feature extraction of Enomoto in the method of LV in view of Guo in further view of Enomoto in still further view of Doi for the motivation of better identifying the user’s face.
With regard to claim 7, LV in view of Guo in further view of Enomoto in still further view of Doi discloses the method of claim 1, as outlined above, and LV further discloses not restricting operation based on the matching comparison (abstract, page 8).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 14 August 2025, have been fully considered and are partially persuasive, and therefore found new art that specifically mentions preventing use if the user is seen to be absent. With regard to applicant’s argument that Guo does not disclose deleting the information from a second capture, the examiner points out that Guo discloses deleting target facial information specifically to save space in a system, as outlined above. In the systems of LV, Enomoto ,and Doi, the second user target data is used to authenticate the user. Once that process is finished, deleting it would save space, as taught by Guo. deleting the original user facial data in LV, Enomoto ,and Doi would prohibit continues periodic authentication, as taught by each reference, and thus only deleting the second user data would be obvious base on Guo.
References Cited
Azar et al., USPN 2006/0288234, discloses a method of authenticating a smart phone user using facial recognition to unlock the phone (abstract).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JACOB LIPMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-3837. The examiner can normally be reached 5:30AM-6:00PM.
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, Kambiz Zand can be reached at 571-272-3811. 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.
/JACOB LIPMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2434