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 Interpretation
Claims 1-12 are not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because they are all method claims.
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, and 4-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Regarding claim 1 as a presentative claim, the 101 analysis is presented below.
Step 1: It is noted that claim 1 recites a method which is a process. Thus, claim 1 is directed to one of statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A Prong 1: Limitations “detecting facial landmarks…the photo” and “extracting a bounding box…two lenses” are interpreted as mental steps as being practically performed in the human mind, and limitations “computing a set of concentration measurements” are interpreted as mathematical calculation. Thus, these limitations fall into the “mathematical concept” grouping of abstract idea “mental process” grouping of abstract idea. Therefore, claim 1 recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong 2: It is noted that claim does include any additional elements (i.e., “receiving…capture device” and “obtaining…the glasses”. These additional elements are nothing more than data gathering and thus insignificantly pre-solution activities. These additional elements also do not amount to an integration of the judicial exception into a practical application. Therefore, claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B: It is noted that claim does include any additional elements as pointed out in Step 2A Prong 2 above. These additional elements are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Therefore, claim is not a patent eligible.
Claim 1 recites an apparatus and claim 14 recites a manufacture so each of these claims falls within one of the statutory categories of invention. It is noted that each of these claims recites similar claim limitations called for in the counterpart claim 13. Thus, the advanced statements as applied to claim 13 above are incorporated herein. It is also noted that claim 1 recites addition elements “memory” and “processor” and claim 14 recites additional elements “medium” and “computer”. The additional elements “memory”, “processor”, “medium” and “computer” are recited at a high level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a conventional computer. The claims do not point to a specific improvement in computer itself. The additional elements, taken individually and in combination, do not contribute to an inventive concept. Therefore, claims 1 and 14 are also directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
The advanced statements as applied to claims 1 and 13-14 are incorporated hereinafter.
Regarding claim 4, limitations “wherein the set of concentration measurements…vertex distance” are interpreted as mathematical calculation. Thus, these limitations fall into the “mathematical concept” grouping of abstract idea”. Thus, claim 4 is also directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Regarding claim 5, limitations “wherein detecting…two pupils” are interpreted as mathematical calculation and/or mental process. Thus, these limitations fall into the “mathematical concept” and/or “mental process” grouping of abstract idea”. Thus, claim 5 is also directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Regarding claim 6, limitations “providing a user interface…glass frame” is nothing more than insignificantly post-solution activity. Thus, claim 6 is also directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Regarding claim 7, limitations “wherein the provided information…bridge width” is nothing more than insignificantly post-solution activity. Thus, claim 7 is also directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Regarding claim 8, limitations “wherein the frame…glasses frame” are interpreted as mathematical calculation. Thus, these limitations fall into the “mathematical concept” grouping of abstract idea”. Thus, claim 8 is also directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Regarding claims 9-12, limitations recited in each of these claims are interpreted as mathematical calculation. Thus, these limitations fall into the “mathematical concept” grouping of abstract idea”. Thus, claims 8-12 are also directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
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 1-12 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.
Regarding claim 1, it recites “the face” in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Likewise, claims 2-12 depend on claim 1 and thus are rejected for the same reasons as well.
Regarding claim 2, it recites “the corner of each lens” in line 7. Since claim does not define whether the lens is a non-circular lens, there is no corner when the lens is a circular lens. Thus, claim lacks clarity. Likewise, claim 3 depends on claim 2 and thus is rejected for the same reasons as well.
Regarding claim 4, it recites limitations “distance PD”, “MPD”, and “near PD” in line 2. These limitations lack clarity as to what they are referred to. Furthermore, claim limitations “segment heights”, “working distance” and “vertex distance” are unclear what they are referred to and how they are obtained.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-3 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 2, the cited prior art does not teach or suggest claim limitations “wherein extracting a bounding box comprises: extracting a frame region mask that identifies the minimum rectangular portion of the photo that includes the entirety of the frame of the glasses; detecting the contours of each of the two lenses; and rectifying the digital photo based on the detected contours, wherein extracting the bounding box for each lens is performed on the rectified digital photo and is based on the position of the comers of each lens within the rectified photo”.
Claim 3 depends on claim 2 and thus is allowable for the same reasons.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Krishna et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 10,617,294B1) teaches an image capturing device (104 of figure 1), generating facial images (302 of figure 3A) and detecting facial landmarks (304 of figure 3A).
Srirangam Narashiman et al. (U.S. Pat. App. Pub. No. 2019/0279009 A1) teaches capturing driver’s face by using a camera (para. [0021]) and detecting facial landmarks (para. [0022]).
Qin (U.S. Pat. App. Pub. No. 2019/0340732 A1) teaches capturing a facial image (para. [0006] (human face in the picture)), detecting facial landmarks (paras. [0007] – [0008] (eye position; facial contour)), and extracting glasses contour (para. [0007]).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DUY M DANG whose telephone number is (571)272-7389. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday from 7:00AM to 3:00PM.
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, Amandeep Saini can be reached at 571-272-3382. 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.
DMD
2/2026
/DUY M DANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2662