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 § 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.
Claims 1-20 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. The claims recite acquiring facial expression data, prompting a user to exhibit a smile with therapeutic benefits, comparing current facial expression data to target facial expression criteria, identifying whether the current expression satisfies target expression criteria and controlling media playback based on whether the current expression data satisfies target expression criteria. The abstract idea encompasses human activity in which an individual visually acquires facial expression data from a subject, compares the expression to a desired expression and manipulating media playback in accordance with if the expression satisfies a desired reaction/expression. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because there is no meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technical environment. Furthermore, the process or method steps performed are not enough to qualify as “significantly more” than the abstract idea itself as the steps may be performed in the human mind as a human visually determining similarities between an acquired image and stored reference images to make a determination. Furthermore, determinations can be made by human activity with evaluation parameters including length of time of the expression occurrence and genuineness of an expression.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements when considered both individually and as an ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The claims recite a facial detection device, a media device and a system processor. The claims further recite a camera, a handheld computing device and a watch. The aforementioned additional elements amount to merely using generic computer components to implement general processing and display an image to a user while the user makes desired determinations. Generic computer components recited as performing generic functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional amount to no more than implementing the abstract idea with a computerized system. Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified abstract idea. There is no indication that the elements improve the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology.
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 1-3, 8-10 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aaron Itzkowitz (US 20190058918 A1) in view of Dennis Wall et al (US 20210133509 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Itzkowitz discloses a system for controlling media playback based on a person exhibiting a smile (¶ [38]), comprising:
a facial expression detection device configured to acquire facial expression data (¶ [34]);
a system processor in data communication with the facial expression detection device and configured to execute stored computer executable system instructions (¶ [47]);
a media device controllably coupled to the system processor and configured to play and stop playing a media file in response to playback instructions from the system processor (¶ [38] and ¶ [41]);
wherein the computer executable system instructions include the steps of:
prompting the person to exhibit a smile (¶ [38]);
receiving facial expression parameter data establishing target facial expression criteria defining a smile (¶ [38] comparison parameters to determine smile/frown);
receiving current facial expression data corresponding to the facial expression of the person from the facial expression detection device (¶ [38]);
comparing the current facial expression data to the target facial expression criteria of the facial expression parameter data (¶ [38]);
identifying whether the current facial expression data satisfies the target facial expression criteria (¶ [38] desirable or undesirable); and
sending playback instructions to the media device based on the identification whether the current facial expression data satisfies the target facial expression criteria (¶ [41]).
Itzkowitz fails to explicitly disclose determining the smile as a smile having therapeutic benefits.
Wall et al, in the same field of endeavor of facial recognition detection to categorize a face as exhibiting an emotion (¶ [44-45]), teaches determining a smile as having therapeutic benefits (¶ [322]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed for the system as disclosed by Itzkowitz for controlling media playback based on a person exhibiting a smile to utilize the teachings of Wall et al which teaches determining a smile as having therapeutic benefits to aid in determining an appropriate therapy plan for individuals diagnosed with conditions which may negatively affect their ability to function as a productive entity.
Regarding claim 2, Itzkowitz discloses the system of claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1), wherein the playback instructions start the media device playing the media file when the current facial expression data satisfies the target facial expression criteria (¶ [41]).
Regarding claim 3, Itzkowitz discloses the system of claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1), wherein the playback instructions stop the media device playing the media file when the current facial expression data does not satisfy the target facial expression criteria (¶ [41]).
Regarding claim 8, Itzkowitz discloses the system of claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1), wherein the facial expression detection device includes a camera (¶ [34]).
Regarding claim 9, Itzkowitz discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the facial expression detection device is incorporated into a handheld computing device (¶ [38] mobile device’s user-facing camera).
Regarding claim 10, Itzkowitz discloses the system of claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1).
Itzkowitz fails to explicitly disclose wherein the facial expression detection device is incorporated into a watch.
Wall et al teaches the facial expression detection device is incorporated into a watch (¶ [39]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed for the system as disclosed by Itzkowitz for controlling media playback based on a person exhibiting a smile to utilize the teachings of Wall et al which teaches the facial expression detection device is incorporated into a watch as a smartwatch is a well-known wearable computing device capable of providing therapeutic relief to an individual customized on a case-by-case basis.
Regarding claim 12, Itzkowitz discloses the system of claim 11 (see rejection of claim 11), wherein the computer executable system instructions further comprise repeating the following steps each time the person is prompted to exhibit a smile (¶ [38] and Fig. 2 numeral 50 repeating the steps with next presentation) with therapeutic benefits (see rejection of claim 1):
receiving current facial expression data corresponding to the facial expression of the person from the facial expression detection device (see rejection of claim 1);
comparing the current facial expression data to the target facial expression criteria of the facial expression parameter data (see rejection of claim 1); and
identifying whether the current facial expression data satisfies the target facial expression criteria (see rejection of claim 1); and
sending playback instructions to the media device based on the identification whether the current facial expression data satisfies the target facial expression criteria (see rejection of claim 1).
Claims 4 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Itzkowitz in view of Wall et al as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hassan Ugail et al (A genuine smile is indeed in the eyes – The computer aided non-invasive analysis of the exact weight distribution of human smiles across the face; Advanced Engineering Informatics 42 (2019)).
Regarding claim 4, Itzkowitz discloses the system of claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1).
Itzkowitz fails to explicitly disclose wherein the computer executable system instructions further comprise determining an elapsed smile time corresponding to how long the current expression data satisfied the target facial expression criteria.
Ugail et al teaches determining an elapsed smile time corresponding to how long the current expression data satisfied the target facial expression criteria (Pg. 3 Section 2.1 Paragraph 2 lines 1-3 “measure…smile…duration”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed for the system as disclosed by Itzkowitz for controlling media playback based on a person exhibiting a smile to utilize the teachings of Ugail et al which teaches determining an elapsed smile time corresponding to how long the current expression data satisfied the target facial expression criteria to aid in distinguishing a genuine smile from a posed smile.
Regarding claim 7, Itzkowitz fails to explicitly disclose the system of claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1).
Itzkowitz fails to explicitly disclose wherein the target facial expression criteria includes the zygomatic major muscles of the person contracting to a selected extent; and the orbicularis oculi muscles of the person contracting to a selected extent.
Ugail et al teaches the target facial expression criteria includes the zygomatic major muscles of the person contracting to a selected extent; and the orbicularis oculi muscles of the person contracting to a selected extent (Pg. 2 Section 2 Related Work Paragraph 1 lines 3-5 “zygomatic major and Orbicularis Oculi” two major muscles to construct a smile).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed for the system as disclosed by Itzkowitz for controlling media playback based on a person exhibiting a smile to utilize the teachings of Ugail et al which teaches the target facial expression criteria includes the zygomatic major muscles of the person contracting to a selected extent; and the orbicularis oculi muscles of the person contracting to a selected extent as the aforementioned muscles are known in the art to aid in determining the genuineness of a smile and improves recognition of expressions.
Claims 6, 11, 13 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Itzkowitz in view of Wall et al and Ugail et al as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Xiuqiang Fang (CN 113157174 B).
Regarding claim 6, Itzkowitz discloses the system of claim 5 (see rejection of claim 5).
Itzkowitz fails to explicitly disclose wherein the playback instructions stop the media device playing the media file when the smile time satisfaction value indicates that the elapsed smile time is less than the target smile time parameter.
Fang in the same field of endeavor of collecting facial expression information during interactive video (lines 31-33), teaches the playback instructions stop the media device playing the media file when the smile time satisfaction value indicates that the elapsed smile time is less than the target smile time parameter (lines 1365-1373 facial expression elapsed time determines if current playback continues or media branch is switched to another playback (i.e., current playback stops)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed for the system as disclosed by Itzkowitz for controlling media playback based on a person exhibiting a smile to utilize the teachings of Fang which teaches the playback instructions stop the media device playing the media file when the smile time satisfaction value indicates that the elapsed smile time is less than the target smile time parameter to enable a user to influence the direction of media playback and achieve high participation and involvement.
Regarding claim 11, Itzkowitz discloses the system of claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1).
Itzkowitz fails to explicitly disclose wherein the computer executable system instructions further comprise prompting the person to exhibit a smile with therapeutic benefits multiple times while the media device plays the media file.
Fang teaches prompting the person to exhibit a smile with therapeutic benefits multiple times while the media device plays the media file (¶ [286-292]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed for the system as disclosed by Itzkowitz for controlling media playback based on a person exhibiting a smile to utilize the teachings of Fang which teaches prompting the person to exhibit a smile with therapeutic benefits multiple times while the media device plays the media file to aid in influencing of the media playback at the user’s desire.
Regarding claim 13, Itzkowitz discloses the system of claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1).
Itzkowitz fails to explicitly disclose wherein the computer executable system instructions further comprise prompting the person to exhibit a facial expression satisfying the target facial expression criteria after a predetermined amount of elapsed time.
Fang teaches prompting the person to exhibit a facial expression satisfying the target facial expression criteria after a predetermined amount of elapsed time (lines 299-304).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed for the system as disclosed by Itzkowitz for controlling media playback based on a person exhibiting a smile to utilize the teachings of Fang which teaches prompting the person to exhibit a facial expression satisfying the target facial expression criteria after a predetermined amount of elapsed time to ensure correct capturing of facial expressions to aid in interactive media playback.
Regarding claim 14, Itzkowitz discloses the system of claim 13 (see rejection of claim 13).
Itzkowitz fails to explicitly disclose wherein the predetermined amount of elapsed time is a regular time interval based on a set schedule.
Wall et al teaches the predetermined amount of elapsed time is a regular time interval based on a set schedule (¶ [321]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed for the system as disclosed by Itzkowitz for controlling media playback based on a person exhibiting a smile to utilize the teachings of Wall et al which teaches the predetermined amount of elapsed time is a regular time interval based on a set schedule to allow for continued evaluation to update a customized therapeutic regimen.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Itzkowitz in view of Wall et al, Ugail and Fang as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of Alper Alsan et al (US 20200118269 A1).
Regarding claim 15, Itzkowitz discloses the system of claim 13 (see rejection of claim 13).
Itzkowitz fails to explicitly disclose wherein the predetermined amount of elapsed time is a time interval based on when the person last exhibited a facial expression satisfying the target facial expression criteria.
Alsan et al, in the same field of endeavor of determining characteristics of facial expressions (Abstract), teaches the predetermined amount of elapsed time is a time interval based on when the person last exhibited a facial expression satisfying the target facial expression criteria (¶ [102-105]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed for the system as disclosed by Itzkowitz for controlling media playback based on a person exhibiting a smile to utilize the teachings of Alsan et al which teaches the predetermined amount of elapsed time is a time interval based on when the person last exhibited a facial expression satisfying the target facial expression criteria to evaluate a condition of a person with respect to the mood of the individual.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMARES Q WASHINGTON whose telephone number is (571) 270-1585. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:30am-4:30pm.
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, Akwasi M. Sarpong can be reached at (571) 270-3438. 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.
/JAMARES Q WASHINGTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2681
February 21, 2026