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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant's response to the last Office Action, filed on 5/14/2026 has been entered and made of record.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments with respect to claims 1, 9 have been considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection.
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, 3-6, 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jin (US 2023/0019720) in view of Horishita (US 2019/0089866).
Regarding claim 1, Jin teaches an information processing apparatus comprising:
a first processor configured to: register, using user registration processing, a user based on face information on a specific person (see para. 0128, Jin discusses store the face information together with the identification information of the user);
detect, using person detection processing, presence of a person by detecting a face area with a face captured therein from the captured image (see para. 0124, Jin discusses detecting persons in the field of view of camera), and
determine, using user determination processing, 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 para. 0128, 0137, Jin discusses performing user authentication using facial recognition); and
a second processor which boots the information processing apparatus from a standby state to a normal operating state in response to a true detection result of the person detection processing (see para. 0131, Jin discusses booting the system when a person is detected within a distance range),
wherein the first processor determines the true detection result in response to detection of the specific person within a first detection range or in response to detection of a person within the second detection range regardless of whether or not the detected person is the specific person (see para. 0131, Jin discusses booting the system when a person is detected within a distance range and activating the system when user authentication is successful).
Horishita teaches a memory which temporarily stores data of a captured image captured by an imaging unit imaging a predetermined detection range (see para. 0029, Horishita discusses temporarily storing image data in memory).
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 Horishita to derive at the invention of claim 1. The result would have been expected, routine, and predictable in order to perform user detection for processor startup activation.
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 processor activation by applying a tiered image detection system that activates a processor by detecting a person within a first range and identifying a registered person within a second range to conserve energy. 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 Horishita continues to perform the same function as originally taught prior to being combined, in order to produce the repeatable and predictable result of applying different image ranges for detecting users and identifying a registered user to activate a processor. The Jin and Horishita systems perform person detection, 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 3, Jin 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 terms of at least either one of the viewing angle and the distance (see figure 3, figure 7, Jin discusses a first detection range with an angle and distance and different detection range with a different distance).
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 Horishita to derive at the invention of claim 3. The result would have been expected, routine, and predictable in order to perform user detection for processor startup activation.
Regarding claim 4, Jin and Horishita teach wherein the detection range is a range defined by a viewing angle of the imaging unit and a distance from the imaging unit (see figure 3, figure 7, Jin discusses a first detection range with an angle and distance and different detection range with a different distance), and the second detection range is a range narrower in viewing angle than at least the first detection range (see para. 0035, Horishita discusses imaging region A2 having a narrower angle of view than the imaging region A1).
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 Horishita to derive at the invention of claim 4. The result would have been expected, routine, and predictable in order to perform user detection for processor startup activation.
Regarding claim 5, Jin 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 figure 3, figure 7, Jin discusses a first detection range with an angle and distance and another detection range with a different distance).
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 Horishita to derive at the invention of claim 5. The result would have been expected, routine, and predictable in order to perform user detection for processor startup activation.
Regarding claim 6, Jin 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. 0128, 0137, Jin discusses performing user authentication using facial recognition).
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 Horishita to derive at the invention of claim 6. The result would have been expected, routine, and predictable in order to perform user detection for processor startup activation.
Claim 9 is rejected as applied to claim 1 as pertaining to a corresponding method.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 7 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including 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: No prior art was found to claim
“wherein the first processor further detects an angle of the face in the face area detected from the captured image,
the first processor sets a detection condition for the specific person registered as the user and a detection condition for a person not registered as the user,
the detection condition for the specific person registered as the user is that the angle of the face in the face area is within a first angle range, and
the detection condition for the person not registered as the user is that the angle of the face in the face area is within a second angle range narrower than the first angle range.”
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8, 10 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
The present invention pertains to varying embodiments processor activation based on user detection. The following is an examiner's statement of reasons for allowance: The present invention is directed towards processor activation based on a registered user, wherein the detection condition for a specific person registered as the user is that the angle of the face in the face area is within a first angle range, and wherein the detection condition for the person not registered as the user is that the angle of the face in the face area is within a second angle range narrower than the first angle range.
The related prior art, Jin (US 2023/0019720) teaches to determine, using user determination processing, 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 para. 0128, 0137, Jin discusses performing user authentication using facial recognition); and
a second processor which boots the information processing apparatus from a standby state to a normal operating state in response to a true detection result of the person detection processing (see para. 0131, Jin discusses booting the system when a person is detected within a distance range),
wherein the first processor determines the true detection result in response to detection of the specific person within a first detection range or in response to detection of a person within the second detection range regardless of whether or not the detected person is the specific person (see para. 0131, Jin discusses booting the system when a person is detected within a distance range and activating the system when user authentication is successful).
However, Jin fails to address:
Claim 8
8. 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;
a first processor configured to:
register, using user registration processing, a user based on face information on a specific person,
detect, using person detection processing, presence of a person by detecting a face area with a face captured therein and an angle of the face from the captured image, and
determine, using user determination processing, whether or not a person detected by the person detection processing is the specific person registered as the user by the user registration processing; and
a second processor which boots the information processing apparatus from a standby state to a normal operating state based on the user registration processing, the person detection processing, and the user determination processing,
wherein, in the person detection processing, the first processor sets a detection condition for the specific person registered as the user and a detection condition for a person not registered as the user,
wherein the detection condition for the specific person registered as the user is that the angle of the face in the face area is within a first angle range, and
wherein the detection condition for the person not registered as the user is that the angle of the face in the face area is within a second angle range narrower than the first angle range.
Claim 10
10. A control method for an information processing apparatus including: a memory which temporarily stores data of a captured image captured by an imaging unit imaging a predetermined detection range; a first processor; and a second processor, the control method comprising:
causing the first processor to perform user registration processing to register a user based on face information on a specific person;
causing the first processor to perform 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 and an angle of the face from the captured image;
causing the first processor to perform 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; and
causing the second processor to boot the information processing apparatus from a standby state to a normal operating state based on the user registration processing, the person detection processing, and the user determination processing,
wherein in the person detection processing, the first processor sets a detection condition for the specific person registered as the user and a detection condition for a person not registered as the user,
wherein the detection condition for the specific person registered as the user is that the angle of the face in the face area is within a first angle range, and
wherein the detection condition for the person not registered as the user is that the angle of the face in the face area is within a second angle range narrower than the first angle range.
These distinct features are in each independent claim and renders them allowable.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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). The examiner can normally be reached on Monday – Friday, 9am – 4pm.
If attempts to reach the 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