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 .
SC § 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.
Independent Claim 8 recites, "one or more computer readable storage media", the scope of which would ordinarily include transitory signals. However, applicant has disavowed transitory signals from the scope of the claim in the specification as follows (PG Publication US 2025/0265867): “ A computer readable storage medium, as that term is used in the present disclosure, is not to be construed as storage in the form of transitory signals per se, such as radio waves or other freely propagating electromagnetic waves, electromagnetic waves propagating through a waveguide, light pulses passing through a fiber optic cable, electrical signals communicated through a wire, and/or other transmission media.” See paragraph 0028. Therefore, independent claim 8 falls within a statutory category of invention and is patent-eligible.
Notice re prior art available under both pre-AIA and AIA
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.
Examiner's Note
Examiner has cited particular columns and line numbers or figures in the references as
applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations
are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the
individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from
the applicant, in preparing the responses, to fully consider the references in entirety as potentially
teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by
the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Assouad (US 2024/0354446 A1) in view of Kelly, et al. (US 2024/0304313).
With regard to claim 1, Assouad discloses a computer-implemented method comprising: detecting by a Detection Component, i.e., RGB camera/sensor/s, of an Image Monitoring System, i.e., monitoring system, an image of a subject, i.e., individual (See for example, Figs. 1 and 36, and the associated text); responsive to detecting the image, sharding (by way of body segmentation or skeletal projection) by a Sharding Component of the Image Monitoring System the image into an image shard based on a key point, i.e., skeletal data and/or body part features; training by a Processor Component of the Image Monitoring System a machine learning model, i.e., recognition or classification model and/or CNN, to generate an image score, i.e., confidence level, of the image shard based on a parameter, i.e., motion, gestures, physiological, environmental and/or contextual parameters, among other things, and the image shard wherein the subject is anonymous to the Processor Component; and determining by a
. With regard to claim 2, the computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the image score is in part based on a characteristic of an adjacent image shard (See for example, paragraph 0235 cooperatively with paragraph 0318 of Assouad: skeletal data/skeletal joints with high confidence is merged to a single skeleton, thereby to improve confidence values).
With regard to claim 3, the computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the Processor Component is selected based on a confidence score (See for example, paragraphs 0080 and 0156 of Kelly, et al).
With regard to claim 4, the computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the key point comprises a feature of the subject, i.e., body parts and/or skeletal projections (See for example, paragraph 0318 of Assouad ).
With regard to claim 5, the computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the parameter comprises a requested image score (See for example, paragraphs 0181 and 0193 of Assouad: self-harm, position of the person, among others).
With regard to claim 6, the computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the Processor Component is deployed in a cloud (See for example, paragraph 0164 of Assouad).
With regard to claim 7, the computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the machine learning model implements a convolutional neural network algorithm (See for example, paragraph 0319 of Assouad).
Claim 8 is rejected the same as claim 1. Thus, argument similar to that presented above for claim 1 is applicable to claim 8. Claim 8 distinguishes from claim 1 only in that it recites a computer program product comprising one or more computer readable storage media. Fortunately, Assouad (See for example, paragraph 0007) teaches this feature.
Claims 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, and 14 are rejected the same as claims 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7 respectively. Thus, arguments similar to those presented above for claims 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7 are respectively applicable to claims 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, and 14.
Claim 15 is rejected the same as claim 1 except claim 15 is a system claim. Thus, argument analogous to that presented above for claim 1 is applicable to claim 15. With regard to a computer system comprising a processor and one or more computer readable storage media, and program instructions collectively stored on the one or more computer readable storage media, applicant’s attention is further invited to Fig. 1 and the associated text).
Claims 16, 17, 18, 19, and 20 are rejected the same as claims 2, 3, 4, 5, and 7 respectively, except claims 16, 17, 18, 19, and 20 are system claims. Thus, arguments similar to those presented above for claims 2, 3, 4, 5, and 7 are respectively applicable to claims 16, 17, 18, 19, and 20.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US Patent Application Publication Numbers: 2018/0300557 (See for example, paragraph 0025) and 2025/0094569 (See for example, paragraphs 24-25); and a publication to Kollreider, et al. (Verifying Liveness by Multiple Experts in Face Biometrics) (See for example, section 2.1, pp. 2-4).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL G MARIAM whose telephone number is (571)272-7394. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-5:00 EST.
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, ANDREW MOYER can be reached at (571)272-9523. 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.
/DANIEL G MARIAM/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2675