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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) filed on 4/18/2024, 12/26/2024, and 4/24/2025 were considered and placed on the file of record 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jin et al. (US 2024/0126857) (WO 2023003156 A1 Date Published 1/26/2023) in view of Kosugi et al. (US 2020/0201401).
Regarding claim 1, Jin teaches an information processing apparatus comprising: a memory which temporarily stores data of a captured image captured by an imaging unit imaging a predetermined detection range (see figure 1, figure 2, figure 8, para. 0058, 0070, Jin discusses processor memory used for storing and registering user images),
a first processor which executes user registration processing to register a user based on face information on a specific person (see figure 1, figure 2, figure 8, para. 0058, 0070, Jin discusses processor memory storing and registering user images), person detection processing to process the data of the captured image stored in the memory in order to detect presence of a person by detecting a face area with a face captured therein from the captured image and user determination processing to determine whether or not a person detected by the person detection processing is the specific person registered as the user by the user registration processing (see figure 1, figure 2, figure 3, figure 8, para. 0064-0065, Liu discusses a first camera temporarily captures a low quality image, and the recaptures a second high quality image using a second camera for detecting a user’s face and performing user authentication); and
a second processor which boots a system based on the user registration processing, the person detection processing, and the user determination processing, wherein in a state where no user is registered by the user registration processing, the first processor sets a detection range in the person detection processing to a first detection range within the predetermined detection range (see figure 1, figure 2, figure 3, figure 8, para. 0064-0065, Jin discusses selecting one camera with a detection range used to determine whether there is a user or not, a second camera captures an image for user authentication; see para. 0071, Jin discusses initializing at least one camera included in the camera module in response to a command to execute a user authentication function).
Kosugi teaches in a state where the user is registered by the user registration processing, the first processor sets the detection range in the person detection processing to the first detection range for the specific person registered as the user, and to a second detection range different from the first detection range for a person not registered as the user (see para. 0063, Kosugi discusses the detection mode control unit sets the sensor detection range to the detection range of the approach detection mode; see para. 0072, Kosugi discusses CPU instructs the authentication processing unit 312 to execute the face authentication processing based on a face image of the person captured by the imaging unit; see para. 0104, Kosugi discusses since a person is detected in a relatively narrow detection angle of view when the approach of the person is to be detected, the electronic apparatus can be prevented from booting up due to the fact that a person other than the person using the electronic apparatus cuts across in front of the electronic apparatus by chance and hence falls within the detection range).
Motivation to combine may be gleaned from the prior art considered. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of Jin with Kosugi to derive at the invention of claim 1. The result would have been expected, routine, and predictable in order to perform user detection and authentication.
The determination of obviousness is predicated upon the following: One skilled in the art would have been motivated to modify Jin in this manner in order to improve user detection and authentication by applying multiple cameras with different field of views and range to properly human movement and then capture another image to perform user authentication against registered user image data, thereby conserving processor energy when the system is in standby mode. Furthermore, the prior art collectively includes each element claimed (though not all in the same reference), and one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements in this manner explained using known engineering design, interface and/or programming techniques, without changing a fundamental operating principle of Jin, while the teaching of Kosugi continues to perform the same function as originally taught prior to being combined, in order to produce the repeatable and predictable result of activating a system after an initial camera captures a person in a first image, and then performing user identification, thereby saving energy consumption. The Jin and Kosugi systems perform user capture and identification, therefore a person having ordinary skill in the art would have reasonable expectation of success in the combination yielding predictable results. It is for at least the aforementioned reasons that the examiner has reached a conclusion of obviousness with respect to the claim in question.
Regarding claim 2, Kosugi teaches wherein in the state where no user is registered by the user registration processing, when the face area is detected from the captured image within the first detection range, the first processor determines that a detection result of the person detection processing is true, in the state where the user is registered by the user registration processing, when the face area of the specific person is detected from the captured image within the first detection range, the first processor determines that the detection result of the person detection processing is true, or when the face area is detected from the captured image within the second detection range regardless of whether or not it is the specific person, the first processor determines that the detection result of the person detection processing is true(see para. 0063, Kosugi discusses the detection mode control unit sets the sensor detection range to the detection range of the approach detection mode; see para. 0072, Kosugi discusses CPU instructs the authentication processing unit 312 to execute the face authentication processing based on a face image of the person captured by the imaging unit; see para. 0104, Kosugi discusses since a person is detected in a relatively narrow detection angle of view when the approach of the person is to be detected, the electronic apparatus can be prevented from booting up due to the fact that a person other than the person using the electronic apparatus cuts across in front of the electronic apparatus by chance and hence falls within the detection range), and
the second processor boots the system based on a fact that the detection result of the person detection processing is determined to be true (see para. 0028, 0117, Kosugi discusses booting the system from standby to normal operation when a person is within a detection range).
The same motivation of claim 1 is applied to claim 2. Motivation to combine may be gleaned from the prior art considered. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of Jin with Kosugi to derive at the invention of claim 2. The result would have been expected, routine, and predictable in order to perform user detection and authentication.
Regarding claim 3, Kosugi teaches wherein the detection range is a range defined by a viewing angle of the imaging unit and a distance from the imaging unit, and the second detection range is different from the first detection range in at least either one of the viewing angle and the distance (see para. 0048, 0104, 0118, Kosugi discusses sensor detection ranges and angles).
The same motivation of claim 1 is applied to claim 3. Motivation to combine may be gleaned from the prior art considered. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of Jin with Kosugi to derive at the invention of claim 3. The result would have been expected, routine, and predictable in order to perform user detection and authentication.
Regarding claim 4, Kosugi teaches wherein the detection range is a range defined by a viewing angle of the imaging unit and a distance from the imaging unit, and the second detection range is a range narrower in viewing angle than at least the first detection range (see para. 0048, 0104, 0118, Kosugi discusses detection range of the approach detection mode to be narrower in detection angle of view FOV than the detection range of the leave detection mode).
The same motivation of claim 1 is applied to claim 4. Motivation to combine may be gleaned from the prior art considered. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of Jin with Kosugi to derive at the invention of claim 4. The result would have been expected, routine, and predictable in order to perform user detection and authentication.
Regarding claim 5, Kosugi teaches wherein the detection range is a range defined by a viewing angle of the imaging unit and a distance from the imaging unit, and the second detection range is a range shorter in distance than at least the first detection range (see claim 4, para. 0048, Kosugi discusses detection range control unit controls the second detection range to be shorter in detection distance than the first detection range).
The same motivation of claim 1 is applied to claim 5. Motivation to combine may be gleaned from the prior art considered. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of Jin with Kosugi to derive at the invention of claim 5. The result would have been expected, routine, and predictable in order to perform user detection and authentication.
Regarding claim 6, Kosugi teaches wherein in the user determination processing, the first processor determines whether or not the person detected by the person detection processing is the specific person based on face information on the face area detected from the captured image by the person detection processing and the face information on the specific person registered as the user by the user registration processing (see para. 0078, Kosugi discusses matching the face image of the person captured by the imaging unit with the set authentication information on the user, when it can be determined to match with each other, the authentication processing unit determines that the face authentication is successful).
The same motivation of claim 1 is applied to claim 6. Motivation to combine may be gleaned from the prior art considered. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of Jin with Kosugi to derive at the invention of claim 6. The result would have been expected, routine, and predictable in order to perform user detection and authentication.
Regarding claim 7, Kosugi teaches wherein the first processor further detects an angle of the face in the face area detected from the captured image, and in the person detection processing, the first processor sets a fact that the angle of the face in the face area is within a first angle range as one of detection conditions for the specific person registered as the user, and sets the fact that the angle of the face in the face area is within a second angle range narrower than the first angle range as one of the detection conditions for the person not registered as the user (see para. 0044, Kosugi discusses set the sensor detection range to a narrow range so that any person other than the person using the electronic apparatus 1 cuts across in front of the electronic apparatus 1 by chance will not fall within the sensor detection range. Thus, in the electronic apparatus 1, the sensor detection range of the approach detection mode is set narrower than the sensor detection range of the leave detection mode).
The same motivation of claim 1 is applied to claim 7. Motivation to combine may be gleaned from the prior art considered. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of Jin with Kosugi to derive at the invention of claim 7. The result would have been expected, routine, and predictable in order to perform user detection and authentication.
Claim 8 is rejected as applied to claim 1 as pertaining to a corresponding method.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Liu eta l. (US 2021/0248389) discusses a first camera to detect a face and if no face is detected, the camera continues detecting movement and faces.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KENNY A CESE whose telephone number is (571) 270-1896. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday – Friday, 9am – 4pm.
If attempts to reach the primary examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Gregory Morse can be reached on (571) 272-3838. 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.
/Kenny A Cese/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2663
Prosecution Insights