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 4/29/2024, 9/18/2024, and 4/17/2025 were considered and placed on the file of record by the examiner.
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 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to abstract idea without significantly more.
In Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, et al. {“Alice Corp.’’), the Supreme Court made clear that it applies the framework set forth in Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Laboratories, Inc., 566 U.S._(2012) {Mayo), to analyze claims directed towards laws of nature and abstract idea. Alice Corp. also establishes that the same analysis applies for all categories of claims (e.g., product and process claims). The basic inquiries to determine subject matter eligibility remain the same as explained in MPEP 2106(1). First, determine whether the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. Next, determine if the claim is directed towards a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, and abstract idea). The two-part test provided in Alice Corp. to determine whether a claim directed towards an abstract idea is statutory under § 101 requires an evaluation to determined 1) whether the claims is directed to an abstract idea and 2) if an abstract idea is present in the claim, whether the claim amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Examples of abstract ideas reference in Alice Corp. include:
- Fundamental economic principles
- Certain methods of organizing human activities
- An idea of itself
- Mathematical relationships/formulas
In accordance with judicial precedent, the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance sets forth a procedure to determine whether a claim is ‘‘directed to’’ a judicial exception. Under the procedure, if a claim recites a judicial exception (a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea), it must then be analyzed to determine whether the recited judicial exception is integrated into a practical application of that exception. A claim is not ‘‘directed to’’ a judicial exception, and thus is patent eligible, if the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of that exception. A claim that integrates a judicial exception into a practical application will apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception.
Step 1 - Statutory Category
The claims 1-10 recite a process capturing an image of a user, entering a record of the user, detect whether the user is the recorded user based on whether the user’s face is within an angle range, and booting a system, therefore it recites at least one of the enumerated categories, a process, eligible subject matter in 35 USC 101. Accordingly, claims 1-10 satisfy Step 1.
Step 2A(i) -Focus of the Claim
As a result, the claims 1-10 will be reviewed under Step 2A(i) to determine whether the claim is directed to one of the judicially recognized exceptions (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea). Alice, 573 U.S. at 217. As part of this inquiry, we must "look at the 'focus of the claimed advance over the prior art' to determine if the claim's 'character as a whole' is directed to excluded subject matter." Affinity Labs of Tex., LLC v. DIRECTV, LLC, 838 F.3d 1253, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (citations omitted). The claims recite causing a system to reboot based on a user being a registered according to the user’s face angle range, thus the organization of human activity such as surveillance of human behavior.
The court have ruled that receiving and authenticating identity data to permit access was abstract since the functions were claimed generically rather than offering a "'concrete, specific solution" See Prisnz Technologies LLC v. T-Afobile USA, 696 F. App'x 1014 (Fed. Cir.2017). Abstract ideas include the concepts of collecting data, recognizing certain data within the collected data set, storing the data in memory, and notifying the user of the results. Content Extraction & Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. Ass 'n, 776 F.3d 1343, 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2014); see also Smart Sys. Innovations, LLC v. Chicago Transit Auth., 873 F.3d 1364, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (concluding "claims directed to the collection, storage, and recognition of data are directed to an abstract idea"). Moreover, the reviewing court has concluded that acts of parsing, comparing, storing, and editing data are abstract ideas. Berkheimer v. HP Inc., 890 F.3d 1369, 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2018). In addition, the collection of information and analysis of information ( e.g., recognizing certain data within the dataset, such as rules) are also abstract ideas. Elec. Power Grp., LLC v. Alstom SA., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Similarly, "collecting, displaying, and manipulating data" is an abstract idea. Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Fin. Corp., 850 F.3d 1332, 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2017); see also SAP Am., Inc. v. InvestPic, LLC, 898 F.3d 1161, 1167 (Fed. Cir. 2018) ("[M]erely presenting the results of abstract processes of collecting and analyzing information ... is abstract as an ancillary part of such collection and analysis").
The process of receiving images of a user, storing the user information, detecting a user is the stored user based on the face angle range of the user, and booting a system is a method of organizing human activity, as considered under MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(II), Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity. Therefore, claims 1-10 recite an abstract idea.
Step 2A(ii) -Practical Application
Limitations that are indicative of integration into a practical application when recited in a claim with a judicial exception include:
Improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(a);
Applying or using a judicial exception to affect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for disease or medical condition – see Vanda Memo
Applying the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(b);
Effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(c); and
Applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(e) and the Vanda Memo issued in June 2018.
Limitations that are not indicative of integration into a practical application when recited in a claim with a judicial exception include:
Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(f);
Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(g); and
Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(h).
In this instance, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claims merely detect user in images, store user information, determine whether user is within a face angle range, determine whether users are the stored user, and boot a system. The claims do not provide an improvement to the functionality of a computer or image analysis technical field; the claims are not implemented with or used with a particular machine; the claims do not transform an article to a different state or thing when locating a user in images; and the claims do not provide a meaningful way of analyzing image regions in the image analysis technical environment.
Step 2B - Inventive Concept
As set forth under MPEP § 2106.05( d), only if a claim: (1) recites a judicial exception; and (2) does not integrate that exception into a practical application, do we then look under Step 2B to determine; (3) whether the claim adds a specific limitation beyond the judicial exception that is not "well-understood, routine, conventional activity" (WURC) in the field; or (4) simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception.
Having determined claims 1-10 is directed to an abstract idea that is not integrated into a practical application, we now evaluate whether the additional elements, whether examined alone or as an ordered combination, add a specific limitation that is not well-understood, routine, or conventional activity in the field, or simply append well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the abstract idea. See generally Revised Guidance.
It is possible that a claim that does not ‘‘integrate’’ a recited judicial exception is nonetheless patent eligible. For example, the claim may recite additional elements that render the claim patent eligible even though a judicial exception is recited in a separate claim element. Along these lines, the Federal Circuit has held claims eligible at the second step of the Alice/Mayo test because the additional elements recited in the claims provided ‘‘significantly more’’ than the recited judicial exception (e.g., because the additional elements were unconventional in combination).
Limitations reference in Alice Corp. that may be enough to quality as “significantly more” when recited in a claim with an abstract idea include, as nonexclusive examples:
- Improvements to another technology or technical field
- Improvements to the functioning of the computer itself
- Meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment
Examples that are not enough to quality as “significantly more” when recited in a claim with an abstract idea include, as non-limiting or non-exclusive example:
- Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with an abstract idea, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer
- Requiring no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the industry
The additional elements recited in claims 1-10 are well-understood, routine, and conventional steps in image analysis and ruled based surveillance. The claims 1-10 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claims are directed to viewing an image and determining location of user.
Additionally, as noted in MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II), the courts have previously recognized that using computer processors and memories to collect data and keep records, perform repetitive calculations, and/or receive/send data are well-understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity (see MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II)(i)-(iv)). See also Berkheimer, 881 F.3d at 1366 (acts of parsing, comparing, storing, and editing data are abstract ideas); SAP Am., Inc. v. Investpic, LLC, 890 F.3d 1016, 1021 (Fed. Cir. 2018) ("[M]erely presenting the results of abstract processes of collecting and analyzing information ... is abstract as an ancillary part of such collection and analysis"); Intellectual Ventures I, 850 F .3d at 1340 ("[C]ollecting, displaying, and manipulating data" is an abstract idea); Smart Sys. Innovations, 873 F .3d at 1372 (concluding "claims directed to the collection, storage, and recognition of data are directed to an abstract idea.").
The claims state receiving images using a processor. However, the claims merely implement the judicial exception using generic computer elements to perform well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality. See FairWarning, 839 F.3d at 1096 ("[T]he use of generic computer elements like a microprocessor or user interface do not alone transform an otherwise abstract idea into patent eligible subject matter."); see also OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363 (claims reciting, inter alia, sending messages over a network, gathering statistics, using a computerized system to automatically determine an estimated outcome, and presenting offers to potential customers found to merely recite "'well-understood, routine conventional activit[ies],' either by requiring conventional computer activities or routine data-gathering steps").
In claims 1-10, steps of receiving images from an imaging unit, determining users, and booting a system is not an improvement to a fundamental practice and/or method of organizing human activity. In claims 1-10, the steps are tied to a processor; however, combining the steps with a generic processor is not significant. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than generalized steps well-known and routine in the art such as image detection and object localization. Therefore, claims 1-10 are directed to patent-ineligible abstract idea that is not integrated into a practical application, with steps that do not add significantly more to the abstract idea. Claims 1-10 are ineligible.
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 7, 8, 10 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.
The following claim 7 elements are vague and indefinite;
“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, 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.”
The claim 7 term “the fact” lacks antecedent basis in “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.”
The following claim 8 elements are vague and indefinite;
“wherein 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 a person not registered as the user.”
The claim 8 term “the fact” lacks antecedent basis in “the fact that the angle of the face in the face area is within a second angle range narrower than the first angle range.”
The following claim 10 elements are vague and indefinite;
“wherein 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 a person not registered as the user.”
The claim 10 term “the fact” lacks antecedent basis in “the fact that the angle of the face in the face area is within a second angle range narrower than the first angle range.”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-7, 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Alameh et al. (US 2020/0026830).
Regarding claim 1, Alameh 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 2, para. 0152, 0154, 0165, Alameh discusses storing in memory facial characteristics of people);
a first processor which executes user registration processing to register a user based on face information on a specific person, 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 (see figure 2, para. 0165, Alameh discusses storing in memory facial characteristics to detect users and authenticate users), 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 4, para. 0163, Alameh discusses matching user biometric data to allow operational access to features, applications, and electronic device); and
a second processor which boots a system based on the user registration processing, the person detection processing (see figure 4, para. 0163, 0179, Alameh discusses granting access to a device and applications based on user authentication), and
the user determination processing, wherein the first processor sets a detection range in the person detection processing to a first detection range within the predetermined 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 figure 5, para. 0158, Alameh discusses a field of view for facial recognition of registered users and a different field of view used to determine whether a user is touching the screen).
Regarding claim 2, Alameh teaches wherein when the face area of the specific person 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, while 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, 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 figure 5, para. 0158, Alameh discusses a field of view for facial recognition of registered users and a different field of view used to determine whether a user is touching the screen).
Regarding claim 3, Alameh 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 5, para. 0158, Alameh discusses two field of views with wide and narrow angles).
Regarding claim 4, Alameh 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 figure 5, para. 0158, Alameh discusses two field of views with wide and narrow angles).
Regarding claim 5, Alameh 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 7, para. 0187, Alameh discusses two field of views with different distance ranges).
Regarding claim 6, Alameh 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 figure 4, para. 0163, 0179, Alameh discusses granting access to a device and applications based on user authentication).
Regarding claim 7, Alameh 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, 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 figure 5, para. 0158, Alameh discusses a field of view for facial recognition of registered users and a different field of view used to determine whether a user is touching the screen).
Claim 9 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.
Perna et al. (US 2016/0014121) discusses authenticating a user to access applications or wireless communication within a computing device such as a mobile device.
Srinivasan et al. (US 2013/0259298) discusses multiple images sensors simultaneously capturing multiple images of the environment with different field of views.
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