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 .
3-6, 9-11, and 13-17
DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
1. 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 03/31/2026 has been entered.
This office action is responsive to RCE filed on 03/31/2026. Claims 1, 3, 5, 7, 9, 10, 11, 13, and 14 are amended. Claims 15-17 are new. Claims 3-6, and 15-17 are pending examination.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
2. 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, 3-7, 9-11, and 13-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claim(s) 9, 13 is/are drawn to method (i.e., a process), claim(s) 1, 7, 11 is/are drawn to a system (i.e., a machine/manufacture), and claim(s) 10, 14 is/are drawn to non-transitory computer readable medium (i.e., a machine/manufacture). As such, claims 1, 7, 9, 10, 11, 13, and 14 is/are drawn to one of the statutory categories of invention.
Claims 1, 3-7, 9-11, and 13-17 are directed to acquire captured images and extract users facial features and output benefit based on face authentication and total amount of payment in the payment history. Specifically, claim(s) 1, 7, 9, 10, 11, 13, and 14 recite(s) acquire captured images and extract users facial features and output benefit based on face authentication and total amount of payment in the payment history. Specifically, claim(s) 1, 7, 9, 10, 11, 13, and 14 recite(s) acquire captured images in which a user is photographed; extract facial feature information from a face area of the captured images and cause an authentication to perform face authentication by comparing the extracted facial feature information with registered facial feature information stored; identify a plurality of points visited by the user based on the face authentication; identify, based on a payment history of the user, amounts of payment at each of the plurality of points; and output a notification indicating a benefit is available to the user when the payment history indicates payments of at least a prescribed amount were made at a prescribed number or more of the plurality of points, generate a composite image that combines the captured images at the respective points of the user who has succeeded in the face authentication into a single image, when a prescribed image generation condition based on the face authentication at a plurality of points is satisfied; and transmit the generated composite image as the benefit to a prescribed, which is grouped within the Methods Of Organizing Human Activity and is similar to the concept of (commercial or legal interactions including agreements in the form of contracts, legal obligations, advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors business relations) grouping of abstract ideas in prong one of step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test (See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50, 52, 54 (January 7, 2019)). Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea (See pages 7, 10, Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, et al., US Supreme Court, No. 13-298, June 19, 2014; 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50, 53-54 (January 7, 2019)).
The Claim limitations are listed under Methods Of Organizing Human Activity, and grouped as following:
acquire captured images in which a user is photographed; extract facial feature information from a face area of the captured images and cause an authentication to perform face authentication by comparing the extracted facial feature information with registered facial feature information stored; which is similar to the concept of (advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors business relations),
identify a plurality of points visited by the user based on the face authentication; identify, based on a payment history of the user, amounts of payment at each of the plurality of points; and which is similar to the concept of (advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors business relations),
output a notification indicating a benefit is available to the user when the payment history indicates payments of at least a prescribed amount were made at a prescribed number or more of the plurality of points; which is similar to the concept of (advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors business relations),
generate a composite image that combines the captured images at the respective points of the user who has succeeded in the face authentication into a single image, when a prescribed image generation condition based on the face authentication at a plurality of points is satisfied; and transmit the generated composite image as the benefit to a prescribed; which is similar to the concept of (advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors business relations).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because, when analyzed under prong two of step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test (See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50, 54-55 (January 7, 2019)), the additional element(s) of the claim(s) such as apparatus, system, processor, memory, computer, non-transitory computer-readable medium, database merely use(s) a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea and/or generally link(s) the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment. Specifically, the apparatus, system, processor, memory, computer, non-transitory computer-readable medium, database perform(s) the steps or functions of acquire captured images in which a user is photographed; extract facial feature information from a face area of the captured images and cause an authentication to perform face authentication by comparing the extracted facial feature information with registered facial feature information stored; identify a plurality of points visited by the user based on the face authentication; identify, based on a payment history of the user, amounts of payment at each of the plurality of points; and output a notification indicating a benefit is available to the user when the payment history indicates payments of at least a prescribed amount were made at a prescribed number or more of the plurality of points, generate a composite image that combines the captured images at the respective points of the user who has succeeded in the face authentication into a single image, when a prescribed image generation condition based on the face authentication at a plurality of points is satisfied; and transmit the generated composite image as the benefit to a prescribed. These functions correspond to the actions required to perform the abstract idea. Viewed as a whole, the combination of elements recited in the claims merely recite the concept of acquire captured images and extract users facial features and output benefit based on face authentication and total amount of payment in the payment history. The use of a processor/computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea and/or generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it requires no more than a computer performing functions that correspond to acts required to carry out the abstract idea. The additional elements do not involve improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field (MPEP 2106.05(a)), the claims do not apply or use the abstract idea to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition (Vanda Memo), the claims do not apply the abstract idea with, or by use of, a particular machine (MPEP 2106.05(b)), the claims do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (MPEP 2106.05(c)), and the claims do not apply or use the abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP 2106.05(e) and Vanda Memo). Therefore, the claims do not, for example, purport to improve the functioning of a computer. Nor do they effect an improvement in any other technology or technical field. Accordingly, the additional elements do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when analyzed under step 2B of the Alice/Mayo test (See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50, 52, 56 (January 7, 2019)), the additional element(s) of using a apparatus, system, processor, memory, computer, non-transitory computer-readable medium, database to perform the steps amounts to no more than using a computer or processor to automate and/or implement the abstract idea of acquire captured images and extract users facial features and output benefit based on face authentication and total amount of payment in the payment history. As discussed above, taking the claim elements separately, the apparatus, system, processor, memory, computer, non-transitory computer-readable medium, database perform(s) the steps or functions of acquire captured images in which a user is photographed; extract facial feature information from a face area of the captured images and cause an authentication to perform face authentication by comparing the extracted facial feature information with registered facial feature information stored; identify a plurality of points visited by the user based on the face authentication; identify, based on a payment history of the user, amounts of payment at each of the plurality of points; and output a notification indicating a benefit is available to the user when the payment history indicates payments of at least a prescribed amount were made at a prescribed number or more of the plurality of points, generate a composite image that combines the captured images at the respective points of the user who has succeeded in the face authentication into a single image, when a prescribed image generation condition based on the face authentication at a plurality of points is satisfied; and transmit the generated composite image as the benefit to a prescribed. These functions correspond to the actions required to perform the abstract idea. Viewed as a whole, the combination of elements recited in the claims merely recite the concept of acquire captured images and extract users facial features and output benefit based on face authentication and total amount of payment in the payment history. Therefore, the use of these additional elements does no more than employ the computer as a tool to automate and/or implement the abstract idea. The use of a computer or processor to merely automate and/or implement the abstract idea cannot provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself (MPEP 2106.05(I)(A)(f) & (h)). Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
As for dependent claims 3-6, and 15-17 further describe the abstract idea of acquire captured images and extract users facial features and output benefit based on face authentication and total amount of payment in the payment history. Claim(s) 3-6, and 15-17 does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when analyzed under step 2B of the Alice/Mayo test (See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50, 52, 56 (January 7, 2019)), the additional element(s) of using a apparatus, system, non-transitory computer-readable medium, processor, display terminal, storage apparatus to perform the steps amounts to no more than using a computer or processor to automate and/or implement the abstract idea of acquire captured images and extract users facial features and output benefit based on face authentication and total amount of payment in the payment history. As discussed above, taking the claim elements separately, the apparatus, system, non-transitory computer-readable medium, processor, display terminal, storage apparatus perform(s) the steps or functions of wherein further configured to execute the instructions to: generate a composite image including the captured images at the respective points of the user who has succeeded in the face authentication, when a prescribed image generation condition based on the face authentication at a plurality of points is satisfied; and transmit the generated composite image as the benefit; record, in history, user ID of the user who has succeeded in the face authentication and the captured images in association with each other, when the face authentication is successful, and acquire the captured images associated with the user ID of the user who has succeeded in the face authentication from the history and use the captured images to generate a composite image; a payment history and user ID included in the payment history in association with each other, wherein further configured to execute the instructions to: determine whether a payment history of the user who has succeeded in the face authentication satisfies the prescribed payment history condition; wherein the visit promotion further comprising point storage configured to store point ID in the captured images and access information at the points in association with each other, and wherein further configured to execute the instructions to: acquire access information associated with the point ID in the captured images from the point and incorporate the access information to generate the composite image; wherein the prescribed image generation condition includes successful face authentication at a prescribed point, and wherein further configured to execute the instructions to: acquire the point ID in the captured images using which the face authentication is successful from the point, and determine whether the point ID is point ID at the prescribed point. These functions correspond to the actions required to perform the abstract idea. Viewed as a whole, the combination of elements recited in the claims merely recite the concept of acquire captured images and extract users facial features and output benefit based on face authentication and total amount of payment in the payment history; set access information corresponding to respective regions of the captured images and generate the composite image; wherein the access information includes store information associated with each of the points; wherein the access information includes event information associated with each of the points. These functions correspond to the actions required to perform the abstract idea. Viewed as a whole, the combination of elements recited in the claims merely recite the concept of acquire captured images and extract users facial features and output benefit based on face authentication and total amount of payment in the payment history. Therefore, the use of these additional elements does no more than employ the computer as a tool to automate and/or implement the abstract idea. The use of a computer or processor to merely automate and/or implement the abstract idea cannot provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself (MPEP 2106.05(I)(A)(f) & (h)). Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Subject Matter Overcoming the Cited Prior Art
4. As detailed in the Office Action the Examiner has not applied a prior art rejection to Claim(s) 1, 3-7, 9-11, and 13-17 when viewed in combination with the corresponding independent claims, however the claim(s) has/have been rejected other grounds as detailed in the Office Action.
In reference to independent claims 1, 7, 9, 10, 11, 13, and 14, the Office is unaware of any references that teach, individually or without an unreasonable combination of references, the combination of limitations steps found in the claims especially limitation that says: “identify a plurality of points visited by the user based on the face authentication; identify, based on a payment history of the user, amounts of payment at each of the plurality of points; generate a composite image that combines the captured images at the respective points of the user who has succeeded in the face authentication into a single image, when a prescribed image generation condition based on the face authentication at a plurality of points is satisfied; and transmit the generated composite image as the benefit to a prescribed display terminal.”. No reference found that would teach the above limitation(s).
Examiner notes: the cited references Saito, Stern and Walker do not teach or suggest "generate a composite image that combines the captured images at the respective points of the user who has succeeded in the face authentication into a single image, when a prescribed image generation condition based on the face authentication at a plurality of points is satisfied transmit the generated composite image as the benefit to a prescribed display terminal," as claimed. Saito cites generation of a composite image. Saito discloses generating a composite image by compositing, onto a registered face image, an obstruction factor (such as a mask or sunglasses) detected from a captured face image when such an obstruction factor is detected. Saito discloses the generation of the composite image is intended to prevent a decrease in the accuracy of searching for a person using face images due to the obstruction factor, by performing matching using feature amounts extracted from the composite image and feature amounts extracted from the captured face image. This is different from the present application, in which (as a reward for performing a face-authentication stamp rally at a plurality of points) a composite image is generated by combining face authentication images obtained at the respective points into a single image, and any of these limitations: generate a composite image that combines the captured images at the respective points of the user who has succeeded in the face authentication into a single image, when a prescribed image generation condition based on the face authentication at a plurality of points is satisfied; and transmit the generated composite image as the benefit to a prescribed display terminal. Therefore, they lack the combination of claimed elements as claimed by the independent claims.
All these references listed above teaches some of the features in the limitations of the claim but when combining it becomes not obvious and the references would teach the claim as a whole.
Examiner note: none of the references or combined references teach the combination of limitations of claim 1, 7, 9, 10, 11, 13, and 14 or no reference found that would teaches the combination of limitations of claim 1, 7, 9, 10, 11, 13, and 14, especially claim limitations: identify a plurality of points visited by the user based on the face authentication; identify, based on a payment history of the user, amounts of payment at each of the plurality of points; generate a composite image that combines the captured images at the respective points of the user who has succeeded in the face authentication into a single image, when a prescribed image generation condition based on the face authentication at a plurality of points is satisfied; and transmit the generated composite image as the benefit to a prescribed display terminal, and which is an idea of Provided are visit promotion apparatuses for providing users who have actually visited various points with information in which visits to the respective points are recorded. A visit promotion apparatus (100) includes: an acquisition unit (130) configured to acquire captured images in which a user is photographed; an authentication control unit (140) configured to extract the user's face area or facial feature information from the captured images and cause an authentication apparatus (200) to perform face authentication; an image generation unit (170) configured to, when a prescribed image generation condition based on the face authentication at a plurality of points is satisfied, generate a composite image including the captured images at the respective points of the user who has succeeded in the face authentication; and an output unit (180) configured to transmit the composite image generated by the image generation unit (170) to a prescribed display terminal.
When taken as a whole, the claims are not rendered obvious as the available prior art does not suggest or otherwise render obvious the noted features nor does the available prior art suggest or otherwise render obvious further modification of the evidence at hand. Such modifications would require substantial reconstruction relying solely on improper hindsight bias, and thus would not be obvious. Therefore, the prior art rejection has been withdrawn.
NPL Reference
5. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The NPL “Face Recognition Vendor Test Ongoing” describes “The primary use cases for scalar image quality assessments are: − Photo acceptance: Foremost, scalar image quality values can be used to make an acceptance or rejection decisions. If an image’s quality is too low, a system will reject the image and initiate collection of a new image. Such a process could be implemented in a camera, in a client computer, or on a remote server. Such a capability is most useful during initial enrollment, when a prior reference image of the subject is not available. It is also useful when forwarding the image to a remote recognition service would be time consuming or expensive. − Quality summarization: Scalar image quality values are useful as a management indicator. That is, in some enterprise where face images are being collected from many subjects, say by different staff, at different sites, under different conditions, the quality values can be used to summarize the effectiveness of the collection. This might be done using some statistic such as average quality, or proportion with low quality. Such summarization can be used to reveal site-specific problems, population effects, as a response variable in A-B tests, and to reveal trends, diurnal or seasonal variation. − Photo selection: Given K > 1 images of a person, select the best image. This operation is useful when a receiving system expects exactly one image, and the capture subsystem must determine which of the several collected images should be transmitted. This application of quality is useful when a capture process includes some variation e.g. due to unavoidable motion of the subject or camera. NOTE Ordinarily this function should not be used in place of recognition. A recognition application should generally enroll all K images of a person rather than select one. This recommendation is made because quality assessment infrastructure is an imperfect predictor of recognition outcome and it may arise that an enrolled image with lower quality might be successfully matched to a probe image due to certain characteristics of the image e.g. view angle or facial expression. That said, if some images may have been collected decades ago, then ageing may well reduce the utility of the image to a recognition against a recent image even if quality is excellent.”.
Pertinent Art
6. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Reference#20160379254 teaches similar invention which describes a method and a system for enabling real time location based personalized offer management to a customer. In one embodiment, the method identifies a plurality of customers likely visiting the store, and determines a plurality of relevant personalized bars that can be provided to the identified customers. The method further receives real time information about the presence of customers within the store and provides the in-store customers with one or more real time recommendations of offers on products based on the usage of the relevant personalized offers. Thus, the method and system provides personalized promotional offer based on convenience of individual customers, customers interest on different products on real-time within the establishment. Further, the method and system also provides alternate offers to customers present within store and assess the promotional effectiveness of the campaign on a real-time basis.
Response to Arguments
7. Applicant's arguments filed 02/01/2023 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
A. Double patent rejection has been withdrawn based on terminal submission and approval on 03/31/2026.
B. Applicant argues that the claims are not directed to a judicial exception under Step 2A Prong One. Examiner respectfully disagrees. As for Step 2A Prong One, of the Abstract idea is directed towards the abstract idea of acquire captured images and extract users facial features and output benefit based on face authentication and total amount of payment in the payment history which is grouped within the Methods Of Organizing Human Activity and is similar to the concept of (commercial or legal interactions including agreements in the form of contracts, legal obligations, advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors business relations) grouping of abstract ideas in prong one of step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test (See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50, 52, 54 (January 7, 2019)). Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea (See pages 7, 10, Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, et al., US Supreme Court, No. 13-298, June 19, 2014; 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50, 53-54 (January 7, 2019)), (MPEP § 2106.04).
C. Applicant argues that the claims are not directed to a judicial exception under Step 2A Prong Two. Examiner respectfully disagrees. As for Step 2A Prong Two, the claim limitations do not include additional elements in the claim that apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, and the claim is not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception and the claim limitation simply describe the abstract idea. The limitation directed to acquire captured images and extract users facial features and output benefit based on face authentication and total amount of payment in the payment history does not add technical improvement to the abstract idea. The recitations to “apparatus, system, processor, memory, computer, non-transitory computer-readable medium, database” perform(s) the steps or functions of acquire captured images in which a user is photographed; extract facial feature information from a face area of the captured images and cause an authentication to perform face authentication by comparing the extracted facial feature information with registered facial feature information stored; identify a plurality of points visited by the user based on the face authentication; identify, based on a payment history of the user, amounts of payment at each of the plurality of points; and output a notification indicating a benefit is available to the user when the payment history indicates payments of at least a prescribed amount were made at a prescribed number or more of the plurality of points, generate a composite image that combines the captured images at the respective points of the user who has succeeded in the face authentication into a single image, when a prescribed image generation condition based on the face authentication at a plurality of points is satisfied; and transmit the generated composite image as the benefit to a prescribed. The use of a processor/computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea and/or generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it requires no more than a computer performing functions that correspond to acts required to carry out the abstract idea. The additional elements do not involve improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field (MPEP 2106.05(a)), the claims do not apply or use the abstract idea to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition (Vanda Memo), the claims do not apply the abstract idea with, or by use of, a particular machine (MPEP 2106.05(b)), the claims do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (MPEP 2106.05(c)), and the claims do not apply or use the abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP 2106.05(e) and Vanda Memo). Therefore, the claims do not, for example, purport to improve the functioning of a computer. Nor do they effect an improvement in any other technology or technical field. Accordingly, the additional elements do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
D. Applicant argues that the claims are not directed to a judicial exception under Step 2B.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. As for Step 2B, The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when analyzed under step 2B of the Alice/Mayo test (See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50, 52, 56 (January 7, 2019)), the limitation directed to acquire captured images and extract users facial features and output benefit based on face authentication and total amount of payment in the payment history does not add significantly more to the abstract idea. Furthermore, using well-known computer functions to execute an abstract idea does not constitute significantly more. The recitations to “apparatus, system, processor, memory, computer, non-transitory computer-readable medium, database” are generically recited computer structure. These functions correspond to the actions required to perform the abstract idea. Viewed as a whole, the combination of elements recited in the claims merely recite the concept of acquire captured images and extract users facial features and output benefit based on face authentication and total amount of payment in the payment history. Therefore, the use of these additional elements does no more than employ the computer as a tool to automate and/or implement the abstract idea. The use of a computer or processor to merely automate and/or implement the abstract idea cannot provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself (MPEP 2106.05(I)(A)(f) & (h)). Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
E. See above for art rejection arguments.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TAREK ELCHANTI whose telephone number is (571) 272-9638. The examiner can normally be reached on Flex Mon - Thur 7-7:00 and Fri 7-4:00.
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, Waseem Ashraf can be reached on (571) 270-3948. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/TAREK ELCHANTI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3621B
Prosecution Insights