DETAILED ACTION
Claim Interpretation
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “an image capture part” and “a controller part” in claim 1.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
Claim 1 is 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. In this case, it is unclear what the numbers, in parenthesis, are/mean; which makes the claim indefinite. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims, 2, 3, 4, 6 and 8 are rejected for the same reasons as claim 1.
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.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter as follows. Claim 8 defines a program embodying functional descriptive material. However, the claim does not define a non-transitory computer-readable medium or memory and is thus non-statutory for that reason (i.e., “When functional descriptive material is recorded on some non-transitory computer-readable medium it becomes structurally and functionally interrelated to the medium and will be statutory in most cases since use of technology permits the function of the descriptive material to be realized” – Guidelines Annex IV). That is, the scope of the presently claimed a program can range from paper on which the program is written, to a program simply contemplated and memorized by a person.
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)(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.
Claims 1, 6 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by el Kabiouby et al. (Pub. NO. US 2017/0238860; hereinafter “el”).
Regarding claims 1 and 8 teaches an emotion inferring apparatus (1) comprising:
an image capture part (13) capturing a subject's face [Para. 91 “A face 1010 can be observed using a camera 1030, a sensor, a combination of cameras and/or sensors, and so on. The camera 1030 can be used to collect facial data that can be used to determine that a face is present in an image”];
a controller part (14) detecting fine expressions appearing on the subject's face from images of the subject' face captured and obtained by the image capture part (13) [Para. 92]; and
inferring an emotion of the subject depending on a ratio (probability) of the detected fine expressions for each of kinds (type of facial expressions) [Para. 92 “The analysis of the facial regions can also include determining probabilities of occurrence of one or more facial expressions”; Para. 94 “One or more classifiers can be used to analyze the facial regions that can include the eyebrows to determine a probability for either a presence or an absence of an eyebrow furrow. The probability can include a posterior probability, a conditional probability, and so on. The probabilities can be based on Bayesian Statistics or another statistical analysis technique. The presence of an eyebrow furrow can indicate [infer] the person from whom the facial data was collected is annoyed, confused, unhappy, and so on (kinds)”].
Regarding claim 6, el teaches an emotion inferring method comprising: capturing by an image capture part (13) a subject's face [Para. 91 “A face 1010 can be observed using a camera 1030, a sensor, a combination of cameras and/or sensors, and so on. The camera 1030 can be used to collect facial data that can be used to determine that a face is present in an image”];
detecting by a controller part (14) fine expressions appearing on the subject's face from images of the subject' face captured and obtained by the image capture part (13) [Para. 92]; and
inferring/determining by the controller part (14) an emotion of the subject depending on a ratio of the detected fine expression for each of kinds [Para. 92 “The analysis of the facial regions can also include determining probabilities of occurrence of one or more facial expressions”; Para. 94 “One or more classifiers can be used to analyze the facial regions that can include the eyebrows to determine a probability for either a presence or an absence of an eyebrow furrow. The probability can include a posterior probability, a conditional probability, and so on. The probabilities can be based on Bayesian Statistics or another statistical analysis technique. The presence of an eyebrow furrow can indicate [infer] the person from whom the facial data was collected is annoyed, confused, unhappy, and so on (kinds)”].
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over el Kabiouby et al. (Pub. NO. US 2017/0238860; hereinafter “el”) in view of Lee (Pub. No. US 2013/0144937).
Regarding claim 2, el doesn’t explicitly teach wherein the controller part (14) categorizes detected fine expressions into individual types and infers an emotion of the subject depending on ratios of each of fine expressions categorized into the individual types.
However, Lee teaches the controller part categorizes detected fine expressions into individual types and infers an emotion of the subject depending on ratios of each of fine expressions categorized into the individual types (positive or negative) [fig. 3, 4 and related description. Para. 56, 47, claim 3 states “calculate the emotion rate based on a ratio of the positive emotional state to the negative emotional state”].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify el to categorize detected expressions into individual types, feature as taught by Lee; because the modification enables the system to quantify and share a user’s emotion reliably by converting recognized emotions into a ratio-based emotion rate for communication between devices
Claims 3 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over el Kabiouby et al. (Pub. NO. US 2017/0238860; hereinafter “el”) in view of Zhang (Pub. No. US 2020/0110863) further in view of El Kaliouby et al. (Pub. No. US 2014/0323817 “hereinafter Kalio”).
Regarding claim 3, el teaches the FACS encodes movements of individual muscles of the face, where the muscle movements often include slight, instantaneous changes in facial appearance.
However, el doesn’t explicitly teach the rest of claim limitation.
Zhang teaches wherein the image capture part (13) captures the subject's face with changing the expressions according to guidance (prompt) instructing (requesting) expressions to the subject wherein the expression is not detected [Para. 2, 13, 15, and 31].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify el to giving guidance instruction in order to capture facial expression, feature as taught by Zhang; because the modification enables the system prevents spoofing in face-based authentication by using prompted, live facial expression response to verify the real authorized user.
el in view of Zhang doesn’t explicitly teach the controller part (14) obtains a changing-rate of expressions of the subject from images of the subject's face captured and obtained by the image capture part (13) and infers an emotion of the subject depending on the changing-rate.
Kalio teaches the controller part obtains a changing-rate (rate of change) of expressions of the subject from images of the subject's face captured and obtained by the image capture part and infers an emotion of the subject depending on the changing-rate [Para. 26 “The categorizing can further be based on a rate of change in the facial expressions by the individual. In embodiments, the rate of change is evaluated during exposure to specific media.”, claims 8, 9 and corresponding description].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify el in view of Zhang to teach the claim limitation feature as taught by Kalio; because the modification enables the system improve emotion determination from captured face image, particularly where static expression detection alone is insufficient.
Regarding claim 4, el teaches wherein a changing-rate pattern table (3) (plurality of mental state event temporal signature) registering patterns of changing rate (rise time, fall time, and duration) of the expression in association with each of the emotion (sadness, stress, happiness etc..) is further comprised, [Para. 65 and 64] and wherein the controller part (14) infers the emotion corresponding to patterns of changing-rates of the expressions obtained from images of the subject's face in the changing-rate pattern table (3) as an emotion of the subject [Para. 92 “The analysis of the facial regions can also include determining probabilities of occurrence of one or more facial expressions”; Para. 94 “One or more classifiers can be used to analyze the facial regions that can include the eyebrows to determine a probability for either a presence or an absence of an eyebrow furrow. The probability can include a posterior probability, a conditional probability, and so on. The probabilities can be based on Bayesian Statistics or another statistical analysis technique. The presence of an eyebrow furrow can indicate [infer] the person from whom the facial data was collected is annoyed, confused, unhappy, and so on [kinds/types]”. Since the term “rate” is not quantified or compared to any number/threshold, el’s teaching reads on the claim limitation].
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SOLOMON G BEZUAYEHU whose telephone number is (571)270-7452. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 10 AM-7 PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, O’Neal Mistry can be reached on 313-446-4912. 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 800-786-0101 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/SOLOMON G BEZUAYEHU/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2666