DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Notice to Applicants
2. This communication is in response to the application filled on 05/28/2024.
3. Claims 1-16 are pending.
4. Limitations appearing inside {} are intended to indicate the limitations not taught by said prior art(s)/combinations.
Information Disclosure Statement
5. The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 05/28/2024, 06/26/2024, 12/18/2024, 08/21/2025, and 09/08/2025 have been considered by the examiner.
Drawings
6. The drawings are objected to because Fig. 23 in MB422 recites “Not possess the mask”, consider correcting to “Do not possess the mask” or similar, see also par. [0147] of the specifications. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
7. 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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(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.
8. Claims 1-3, 8, and 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Publication No. 2020/0143186 to Kato et al. (hereinafter Kato).
9. Regarding Claim 1, Kato discloses an authentication device comprising: at least one memory configured to store instructions; and at least one processor configured to execute the instructions to ([Fig. 1], [par. 0023, ln. 1-9] “…FIG. 1, an information processing apparatus 10 according to the present example embodiment has a central processing unit (CPU) 12, a random access memory (RAM) 14, a storage unit 16, an input unit 18, a display unit 20, a capture unit 22, an audio output unit 24, and a communication unit 26…”, [par. 0025, ln. 1-8] “The CPU 12 operates by executing a program stored in the storage unit 16 and functions as a control unit that controls the operation of the entire information processing apparatus 10. Further, the CPU 12 performs various processes as the information processing apparatus 10 by executing a program stored in the storage unit 16. The RAM 14 provides a memory field necessary for the operation of the CPU 12.”, [par. 0026, ln. 1-8] “The information processing apparatus 10 according to the present example embodiment performs face authentication for a user when the user logs in a particular application program stored in the storage unit 16. Furthermore, the information processing apparatus 10 is configured to be able to determine impersonation of the user by using a non-living object such as a photograph, a moving image, or the like in face authentication.”): generate an input acceptance screen which includes a first area for displaying a message and receives a tap operation by a target person for a face authentication in the first area or in a second area which is provided separately from the first area ([Fig. 5] see SL and SL12, [Fig. 6-8, 10] see SF12, SF14, SF144, and SF20, [par. 0029, ln. 1-17] “The authentication processing unit 12a causes the display unit 20 to display a login window that requests the user for face authentication and accepts a login request from the user… the user who is a target of face authentication is able to perform touch entry by pushing a particular region such as a login button, a login icon, or the like in a login window displayed on… 20, which is configured integrally with the input unit 18 as a touchscreen display. This enables the user to input a login request to the information processing apparatus 10… the user is able to input a login request… 10 by causing the capture unit 22 to capture its own face and inputting the face image to… 10… Once a login request is input by the user… 12a causes… 20 to display a face authentication window used for face authentication.”, [par. 0033, ln. 1-14] “In response to receiving entry of a login request from the user, the movement instruction unit 12b instructs the user, who is a target of face authentication, to perform a particular movement regarding the head captured by a capture unit 22. The movement instruction unit 12b can cause the display unit 20 to display the display providing an instruction about a particular movement and instruct the user about the particular movement… 12b can cause… 20 to display an instruction message about a particular movement, a visual symbol that moves as an animation with a particular movement… as the instruction display of a particular movement. A visual symbol may be, for example, a face icon that is an icon imitating a face, a pictogram, or the like.”); and generate a menu screen including one or more menu items as a screen after transitioning from the input acceptance screen in response to the tap operation performed to the first area or the second area ([Fig. 5] see SL and SL12, [Fig. 6-8, 10] see SF12, SF14, SF144, and SF20, [par. 0029, ln. 1-17] [par. 0033, ln. 1-14], [par. 0074, ln. 1-8] “FIG. 5 illustrates one example of a login window SL that requests face authentication. As illustrated in FIG. 5, on the login window SL, a face icon SL12 indicating that face authentication is requested in a login operation is displayed… by pushing the face icon SL12, the user may input, to the information processing apparatus 10, a login request that requests login to a particular application program.”, [par. 0077, ln. 1-17] “FIG. 6 illustrates one example of a face authentication window SF at the start of face authentication, that is, at the start of acquisition of a face image by the face image acquisition unit 12c. As illustrated in FIG. 6, the face authentication window SF includes a moving image display region SF12 that displays a moving image captured by the capture unit 22 and a movement instruction display region SF14 that displays an instruction about a particular movement from the movement instruction unit 12b. Further, the face authentication window SF includes a bar-like gage SF16 indicating the progress status of acquisition of face images and frame-like gages SF18L and SF18R similarly indicating the progress status of acquisition of face images. Further, the face authentication window SF includes a “Use password” button SF20 used for switching the authentication scheme to a password scheme and a “Cancel” button SF22 used for cancelling face authentication.”).
10. Regarding Claim 2, Kato discloses the device of claim 1. Kato further discloses wherein the message is a message pertaining to entering of a restricted admission area ([Fig. 11], [Fig. 5] see SL and SL12, [Fig. 6-8, 10] see SF12, SF14, SF144, and SF20, [par. 0029, ln. 1-17] [par. 0033, ln. 1-14], [par. 0074, ln. 1-8], [par. 0077, ln. 1-17], [par. 0120, ln. 1-12] “While the case where the information processing apparatus 10 is configured to perform face authentication at login to a particular application… face authentication may be performed at entry to a particular place such as a room, an area, or the like… a case where an… apparatus is configured as a control apparatus that controls a door such as an automatic door, a gate, or the like to restrict entry to a particular place and performs face authentication at entry to the particular place will be described.”, [par. 0121, ln.1-6] “As illustrated in FIG. 11, an information processing apparatus 210… has a door 30 that restricts entry to a particular place in addition to the configuration of the information processing apparatus 10 according to the first example embodiment illustrated in FIG. 1”, [par. 0123, ln. 1-13] “The information processing apparatus 210… performs the same face authentication as in the information processing apparatus 10 according to the first example embodiment described above when the user enters a particular place where entry is restricted by the door 30… 210… opens the door 30 when face authentication is successful and permits entry of the user to a particular place… 210 maintains the door 30 to be closed when face authentication fails and rejects entry of the user to a particular place.”, [par. 0124, ln. 1-4] “…the information processing apparatus can be configured to perform the same face authentication as the first example embodiment at entry to a particular place.”), and the face authentication is an authentication for determining whether or not to permit the entering of the restricted admission area ([par. 0120, ln. 1-12], [par. 0121, ln.1-6], [par. 0123, ln. 1-13], [par. 0124, ln. 1-4]).
11. Regarding Claim 3, Kato discloses the device of claim 1. Kato further discloses wherein the processor generates the input acceptance screen in at least one of a case where the face authentication has not been performed for the target person ([Fig. 5] see SL and SL12, corresponding to an input acceptance screen awaiting input from a user), a case where the entering of the restricted admission area is not permitted for the target person by the face authentication ([Fig. 6-8, 10] see SF12, SF14, SF144, and SF20, see specifically Fig. 10 wherein admission would not be permitted according to apparatus 210 performing the same face authentication as apparatus 10 of Kato as discussed in [par. 0124, ln. 1-4]), and a case where the entering of the restricted admission area is permitted for the target person by the face authentication ([Fig. 6-8, 10] see SF12, SF14, SF144, and SF20, see specifically Fig. 8 wherein admission would be permitted according to apparatus 210 performing the same face authentication as apparatus 10 of Kato if the face authentication confirms admissibility of user, see [par. 0120, ln. 1-12], [par. 0121, ln.1-6], [par. 0123, ln. 1-13], [par. 0124, ln. 1-4]).
12. Regarding Claim 8, Kato discloses the device of claim 1. Kato further discloses wherein the processor generates a different screen depending on an authentication state of the face authentication for the target person, as the input acceptance screen ([Fig. 10], [par. 0088, ln. 1-15] “If it is determined by the face image acquisition unit 12c that the user's particular movement is improper (step S110, NO), unless the time limit has elapsed (step S112, NO)… 12b controls and changes the display providing an instruction about a particular movement (step S114)… unit 12b may continue the movement of the face icon shaking the head, may cause the movement of the face icon shaking the head to be wider, or may emphasize and display an instruction message “Please shake your head” on the display unit 20… 12c then continues to determine whether or not the user's particular movement is proper (step S110). Note that, if the time limit has elapsed (step S112, YES), the process proceeds to step S138 described below.”, [par. 0089, ln. 1-10] “On the other hand, if it is determined by the face image acquisition unit 12c that the user's particular movement is proper (step S110, YES)… 12b controls and changes the display providing the instruction about a particular movement (step S116)… 12b may stop the movement of the face icon shaking the head or may change display of the face icon so as to have a smiling facial expression or the like which associates that the user's particular movement is proper…”, [par. 0115, ln. 1-22] “FIG. 10 illustrates the face authentication window SF at a face authentication failure when the face authentication failed because the predefined number of face images have not been acquired and the time limit has elapsed… in FIG. 10, in the face authentication window SF at the face authentication failure, a failure icon SF26 such as an exclamation mark icon indicating that the predefined number of face images have not been acquired and thus the face authentication failed is displayed instead of the face icon SF144. Further, instead of the frame-like gages SF18L and SF18R, a failure frame SF28 indicating that the face authentication failed by using a different color or the like from the frame-like gages SF18L and SF18R is displayed around the moving image display region SF12… Further, while displaying a color moving image captured by the capture unit 22 when face images are acquired, the moving image display region SF12 displays a grayscale frame or a black and white frame at a particular point of time of a moving image captured by the capture unit 22 when face authentication fails, for example. Thereby, the moving image display region SF12 indicates that face authentication failed.”).
13. Regarding Claim 13, Kato discloses the authentication system comprising: an authentication device according to claim 2 ([Fig. 11], [Fig. 5] see SL and SL12, [Fig. 6-8, 10] see SF12, SF14, SF144, and SF20, [par. 0029, ln. 1-17], [par. 0033, ln. 1-14], [par. 0074, ln. 1-8], [par. 0077, ln. 1-17], [par. 0120, ln. 1-12], [par. 0121, ln.1-6], [par. 0123, ln. 1-13], [par. 0124, ln. 1-4]); and a control unit configured to perform a control concerning a release of an admission restriction at a predetermined entrance of the restricted admission area in a case where the entering of the restricted admission area is permitted for the target person by the face authentication ([par. 0120, ln. 1-12], [par. 0121, ln.1-6], [par. 0122, ln. 1-7] “The door 30 is formed of an automatic door, a security gate, or the like, for example, and installed at an entrance of a particular place such as a room, an area, or the like where entry of the user is restricted. The door 30 performs a door-open operation and a door-close operation under the control of the CPU 12.”, [par. 0123, ln. 1-13], [par. 0124, ln. 1-4]).
13. Regarding Claim 14, Kato further discloses an authentication method ([par. 0007, ln. 2-6] “…provided is an information processing method including: instructing a user about a movement; acquiring biometrics information on the user from the user instructed about the movement; and controlling display directed to the user in accordance with a movement status of the user.”). The remainder of the claim is analogous to claim 1, and rejections analogous to claim 1 are further applicable to claim 14 in view of the authentication method of Kato.
14. Regarding Claim 15, Kato further disclose a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing a program, the program causing a computer to perform a process ([par. 0008, ln. 2-7] “…provided is a non-transitory storage medium storing a program that causes a computer to perform: instructing a user about a movement; acquiring biometrics information on the user from the user instructed about the movement; and controlling display directed to the user in accordance with a movement status of the user.”). The remainder of the claim is analogous to claim 1, and rejections analogous to claim 1 are further applicable to claim 15 in view of the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of Kato.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
15. 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.
16. Claim 4 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Publication No. 2020/0143186 to Kato and further in view of U.S. Publication No. 2006/0204050 to Takizawa (hereinafter Takizawa).
17. Regarding Claim 4, Kato discloses the device of claim 3. Kato further discloses wherein the processor generates a screen which includes the message for informing the target person {that the entering of the restricted admission area is not permitted}, as the input acceptance screen for the case where the entering of the restricted admission area is not permitted for the target person by the face authentication ([Fig. 6-8, 10] see SF12, SF14, SF144, and SF20, see specifically Fig. 10 wherein admission would not be permitted according to apparatus 210 performing the same face authentication as apparatus 10 of Kato as discussed in [par. 0124, ln. 1-4]), and the processor generates a screen which includes the one or more menu items enable to perform other authentication methods which different from the face authentication, as the menu screen after transitioning from the input acceptance screen ([Fig. 6-8, 10] see SF12, SF14, SF144, and SF20, see specifically Fig. 10 wherein admission would not be permitted according to apparatus 210 performing the same face authentication as apparatus 10 of Kato as discussed in [par. 0124, ln. 1-4], see specifically SF20 and SF22 for different authentication methods, [par. 0074, ln. 1-8], [par. 0077, ln. 1-17]). Specifically, Kato discloses informing the user when face authentication fails, but does not specifically generate a message that entering the restricted admission area is not permitted. However, one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, would specifically recognize that in the case of permitting access to a restricted admission area as disclosed in Kato, it would have been apparent than a notification informing a user that an authentication failed would be directly analogous to informing a user that they do are not permitted to enter. Specifically, in the case that the face authentication fails in Kato, it is specifically noted that access is denied ([par. 0120, ln. 1-12], [par. 0121, ln.1-6], [par. 0123, ln. 1-13], [par. 0124, ln. 1-4]), and therefore, a face authentication failure message as generated by Kato in Fig. 10 is directly analogous to informing a user that they are not permitted to enter the restricted admission area. Likewise, the symbols used in Kato would be recognized as messages (e.g., exclamation mark of SF26 in Fig. 10), and thus may also be recognized as informing a user that they cannot access a restricted area. Therefore, Kato discloses notifications that would have rendered informing the user that the entering of the restricted admission area is not permitted obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
However, Takizawa specifically teaches to generate a message informing the target person that the entering of the restricted admission area is not permitted in a case where entering is not permitted for the target person by the face authentication ([par. 0046, ln. 1-6] “In the case where, after identification has terminated, the face authenticating module 19 determines that the pedestrian is a person who has been registered in advance, the face identification display module 21 displays a message indicating that entrance has been permitted for the pedestrian M, as shown in FIG. 5D.”, [par. 0047, ln. 1-8] “In the case where the identification fails, i.e., in the case where the face authenticating module 19 determines that the pedestrian is not a person who has been registered in advance, the face identification display module 21 displays a message indicating that entrance has been rejected for the pedestrian M, as shown in FIG. 5E. The display shown in FIG. 5E will be described in detail in a description of the display identification control module 23 given later.”). One of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, would specifically recognize Kato and Takizawa as within the same field of face authentication for secure area access, and as analogous to the claimed invention. The motivation to combine would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, in that it could improve user understanding (e.g., of the purpose of the face authentication). One of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, would have combined the device of Kato with the informing messages of Takizawa through known means, with no change to their respective function, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predicable results.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to combine the device of Kato with the informing messages of Takizawa to obtain the invention as specified in claim 4.
18. Regarding Claim 7, Kato discloses the device of claim 3. Kato further discloses wherein the processor generates a screen which includes the message {for informing the target person that an admission agreement is necessary} for the entering of the restricted admission area, as the input acceptance screen in the case where the entering of the restricted admission area {is not permitted for the target person by the face authentication} ([Fig. 6-8, 10] see SF12, SF14, SF144, and SF20, see specifically Fig. 10 wherein admission would not be permitted according to apparatus 210 performing the same face authentication as apparatus 10 of Kato as discussed in [par. 0124, ln. 1-4]). Specifically, Kato generating a screen which includes a message for entering the restricted admission area, but does disclose wherein the message is for informing the target person that an admission agreement is necessary in the case they are not permitted to enter by the face authentication.
However, Takizawa teaches informing the target person that an admission agreement is necessary for entering the restricted admission area ([Fig. 5F], [par. 0090, ln. 1-6] “On the other hand, in the case where, as a result of the check in step 18, it is determined that identification has failed (step 18: NO), the control module 23 displays for a predetermined period of time a message "identification NG" as shown in FIG. 5E via the face authenticating display module 21 (step S21).”, [par. 0091, ln. 1-10] “Then, the control module 23 displays the detected face image, as shown in FIG. 5F, via the face identification display module 21. In addition, in the case where registration is made as a result of "identification NG", the control module 23 displays for a predetermined period of time a message which prompts the pedestrian M to input a key such as "Identification NG. Press any key when you want to make registration" (step 22). If no key input is made within a predetermined period of time (step 23: NO), the current processing reverts to step 1.”, [par. 0092, ln. 1-6] “On the other hand, when a key is inputted via the operating module 16 within a predetermined period of time (step 23: YES), the control module 23 displays a message screen for prompting the pedestrian M to enter an ID number and a password, and waits for an operation input by the pedestrian M (step 24).”, [par. 0093, ln. 1-8] “Then, when the ID number and the password have been inputted via the operating module 16 (step 24: YES), the control module 23 checks whether or not the inputted ID number and password are correct (step 25). In the case where it is determined that the inputted ID and password are correct (step 25: YES), a processing operation for registering dictionary information described later (or updating processing operation) is carried out (step 26).”, [par. 0096, ln. 1-5] “…in the case where any key is pressed and in the case where the current processing reverts to step 26, the control module 23 carries out a processing operation for registering dictionary information with respect to the pedestrian M (step 28).”, [par. 0098, ln. 1-8] “…in step 28, the control module 23 first accepts inputs of an ID number and a password (step 31). However, in the case where the current processing reverts to step 26 described above, this processing operation in step 31 is skipped. Next, the control module 23 checks whether or not the input ID number and password are correct (step 32), and terminates the registering processing operation if they are not correct.”, [par. 0099, ln. 1-9] “When the user ID and password are correct as a result of the check in step 32, the control module 23 picks up a face of the pedestrian M as an image by the short distance camera 18 in accordance with an image pickup condition for the face correlating device or the like, and acquires a face image (step 33). Alternatively, at this time point, in the case where the face image of the pedestrian M has been successfully acquired, this face image may be utilized.”). Specifically, one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, would recognize that the Takizawa effectively presents an admission agreement comprising a registration agreement plus password authentication in the case where entering the restricted admission area is not permitted by the face authentication. The motivation to combine would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, in that it allows for automation of the registration process for the face images. One of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, would have combined the device of Kato with the admission agreement message screen of Takizawa through known means, with no change to their respective function, and the combination would have yielded nothing more then predicable results.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to combine the device of Kato with the admission agreement message screen of Takizawa to obtain the invention as specified in claim 7.
19. Claim 5 and 9-10 are rejected in view of U.S. Publication No. 2020/0143186 to Kato and further in view of “IoT and Deep Learning Based Approach for Rapid Screening and Face Mask Detection for Infection Spread Control of COVID-19” to Hussain et al. (hereinafter Hussain).
20. Regarding Claim 5, Kato discloses the device of claim 3. Kato further discloses wherein the processor generates a screen which includes the message {for urging the target person who enters the restricted admission area to wear a mask}, as the input acceptance screen for the case where the entering of the restricted admission area is permitted for the target person by the face authentication {and a case where the target person does not wear the mask} ([Fig. 6-8, 10] see SF12, SF14, SF144, and SF20, see specifically Fig. 8 wherein admission would be permitted according to apparatus 210 performing the same face authentication as apparatus 10 of Kato if the face authentication confirms admissibility of user, see [par. 0120, ln. 1-12], [par. 0121, ln.1-6], [par. 0123, ln. 1-13], [par. 0124, ln. 1-4]). Specifically, while Kato discloses generating a message for the case where the entering of the restricted admission area is permitted for the target person by the face authentication, Kato does not specifically disclose urging the target person to wear a mask or a determination of a mask in an image.
However, Hussain specifically discloses to detect if a target person is wearing a mask ([pg. 15, 3.3.7. Convolution Neural Netowork (CNN), par. 2, ln. 1-9] “The CNN architecture comprises two convolutional layers that are shown in Figure 12; the first layer has 200 kernels that are divided into 3 by 3 and the second layer has 100 kernels divided into 3 by 3. A flattening layer transforms a two-dimensional matrix of features inside a vector fed within a fully connected neural network classifier in linking the convolutional layer and the completely connected layer. Subsequently, there is a dense layer of 50 neurons, the primary layer in neural networks, individual neurons, and then providing one output to the next layer. Finally, there is a final dense layer of two neurons that provide output as classification, either people wearing a mask or without a mask.”), and in a case where the target person does not wear the mask, to urge the target person who enters the restricted admission area to wear a mask ([pg. 15, 3.3.7. Convolution Neural Netowork (CNN), par. 3, ln. 1-17] “Whenever any person passes through this sanitizer gate, the sensors detect the object; the motion sensor and ultrasonic sensor gave a signal to Arduino, and it activates the DC motor; hence, it starts to pump the sanitizer liquid from the tank to the nozzles for 10 s; after 10 s, Arduino again alert it and stop the motor. This task repeats whenever anyone passes through the gate. Whenever a man passes from SSDWG for disinfection using sanitizer liquid, human body temperature must be checked more than the average temperature; an alarm sound alerts the person who controls the entrance and diverts the suspected person to the infirmary to test COVID-19 further and instructs him to wear a mask. Our system stores the status of the suspected person in the database and, in this way, we can easily monitor and track individuals suspected of COVID-19. Moreover, we recommend those suspected persons to go for COVID-19 testing if anyone fails to detect the early entrance passes stage.”). Specifically, one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, would recognize Kato and Hussain as within the same field of facial recognition and screening for secure areas and as analogous to the claimed invention. The motivation to combine would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, and is further disclosed in Hussain, wherein it allows for monitoring to determine if an individual is wearing a face mask for preventative measures against infectious diseases ([pg. 5, 1.4. Motivation and Contribution, par. 1, ln. 9-30] “Accordingly, there is only one way to control and minimize the spread by adopting SOP’s that are given by the World Health Organization (WHO), such as social distancing and wearing a mask. The United States Center for Disease Control (CDC) advised the public to wear a face mask or any cloth to cover their nose and mouth, they said that people can spread COVID-19, even if they do not feel sick. It is scientifically proven that a mask could reduce the chances of spread of COVID-19 by 90% [8]. The contributions and research outcomes of our proposed model are as follows… The proposed model also includes the module to check an individual’s temperature while using a contact-free temperature sensor without any human intervention and store the temperature in the database… According to the WHO, wearing a face mask in public places can protect an individual from COVID-19, as evidenced by experiments. The second module of SSDWG is to detect individuals wearing a mask or not and classify individuals in three classes, which are face with proper mask (FWPM), face with improper mask (FWIPM), and face without a mask (FWOM). In this module, we trained our machine learning models using three datasets, and we attained significant accuracy… The sub-module of our face mask identification system is to identify the types of face masks, either N-95 or surgical masks.”, [pg. 7, 2.2. Role of Artificial Intelligence (AI) in COVID-19 Pandemic, par. 1, ln. 13-19] “According to WHO [17], airborne transmission is not the same as droplet transmission because large respiratory droplets are greater than five micrometers that can remain in the air for a short time and travel for only short distances. Usually, these droplets can travel <1 m. On the other hand, airborne droplets can remain in the air for a long time, and they can travel on long distances, such as greater than 1 m or (more than 3.3 feet). Hence, that is why, the WHO declared it mandatory to wear a face mask in their proposed SOP’s to control the transmission of COVID-19 after the results of their experiments [18].”). This is particularly relevant to healthcare settings (e.g., hospital waiting room, patient visitation, entrance to sterile environments). Specifically, it would have been apparent in view of the teachings of Hussain to have modified the message of Kato to generate a message for urging the target person who enters the restricted admission area to wear a mask in the case that the face authentication was validated and they were not wearing a mask for the express purpose of reduction of infectious disease risks. One of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, would have combined the device of Kato with the mask detection and urging to wear a mask as disclosed in Hussain through known means, with no change to their respective function, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predicable results.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to combine the device of Kato with the mask detection and urging to wear a mask as disclosed in Hussain to obtain the invention as specified in claim 5.
21. Regarding Claim 9, Kato discloses the device of claim 8. Kato discloses wherein the processor generates a different screen {in accordance with whether or not the body temperature of the target person is normal}, as the input acceptance screen in a state where the face authentication is successful for the target person ([Fig. 6-8, 10] see SF12, SF14, SF144, and SF20, see specifically Fig. 8 wherein admission would be permitted according to apparatus 210 performing the same face authentication as apparatus 10 of Kato if the face authentication confirms admissibility of user, see [par. 0120, ln. 1-12], [par. 0121, ln.1-6], [par. 0123, ln. 1-13], [par. 0124, ln. 1-4]). Kato does not specifically disclose to generate a different screen in accordance with whether or not the body temperature of the target person is normal.
However, Hussain teaches to determine whether or not the body temperature of the target person is normal ([pg. 15, 3.3.7. Convolution Neural Netowork (CNN), par. 3, ln. 1-17], [pg. 5, 1.4. Motivation and Contribution, par. 1, ln. 9-30], [pg. 10, 3.2. Body Temperature Detection, par. 1, ln. 1 to par. 2, ln. 15] “…The most prominent part of SSDWG measures the temperature of the human body in real-time in a contact-free manner, and it stores the person’s body temperature, along with a picture of a suspected person in our system, as shown in Figure 7, and we can track the most vulnerable persons through recorded temperature data because [6] some of the most common symptoms of COVID-19 are temperature or fever. Temperature measuring sensor MLX90614 is used in our proposed SSDWG [33]. It is a non-contact wireless infrared thermometer that is used for human body temperature measurement, and its micro-controller is capable of wireless communications. We proposed contact-free temperature checking mechanisms because it is not violating the social distance SOP’s. An image processing module is used to capture a suspected photo whose body temperature is not average. In our proposed model, we placed our temperature measure sensor and image capturing module on the front side of SSDWG. Whenever any person wants to pass from SSDWG, he/she must stand in front of the temperature sensor for 3 s; the temperature sensor detects the human body temperature and contact-free sensor shown in Figure 8. If the human body temperature ia detected ar 100.4 Fahrenheit or 38.0 Celsius, or more than this, the temperature sensor passes the indication to the alarm, and the body temperature and photo captured from CCTV are stored in the database [34]…”). The motivation to combine remains analogous to claim 5, specifically, one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, would recognize that redirecting individuals who have high body temperatures to further screening can serve to reduce infection risks ([pg. 5, 1.4. Motivation and Contribution, par. 1, ln. 9-30]). One of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, would have modified the device and the screen message of Kato to redirect an individual (e.g., for further screening, to deny access, etc.) as disclosed in Hussain through known means, with no change to their respective function, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predicable results.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to combine the device of Kato with the body temperature determination of Hussain to obtain the invention as specified in claim 9.
22. Regarding Claim 10, Kato discloses the device of claim 8. Kato discloses wherein the processor generates a different screen {depending on a wearing state of the mask of the target person}, as the input acceptance screen in a state where the face authentication is successful for the target person ([Fig. 6-8, 10] see SF12, SF14, SF144, and SF20, see specifically Fig. 8 wherein admission would be permitted according to apparatus 210 performing the same face authentication as apparatus 10 of Kato if the face authentication confirms admissibility of user, see [par. 0120, ln. 1-12], [par. 0121, ln.1-6], [par. 0123, ln. 1-13], [par. 0124, ln. 1-4]). Specifically, Kato discloses generating a different screen as the input acceptance screen in a state where the face authentication is successful, but does not specifically disclose that this screen is generated depending on a wearing state of the mask of the target person.
However, Hussain teaches to specifically to detect if a target person is wearing a mask ([pg. 11, Fig. 9, see multiple state outputs, proper mask, improper mask, and no mask classes], [pg. 15, 3.3.7. Convolution Neural Netowork (CNN), par. 2, ln. 1-9]), and to redirect or urge a target person to wear a mask depending on the wearing state of the mask of the target person ([pg. 11, Fig. 9, see multiple state outputs, proper mask, improper mask, and no mask classes], [pg. 11, 3.3. Mask Detection Module, par. 1, ln. 1-7] “The second module of SSDWG is to detect the mask-wearing by people who are passing through it. We used five pre-trained deep learning models, which are VGG 16, MobileNetV2, Inception V3, ResNet-50, and Convolutional Neural Network (CNN), to detect a face mask wear in three classes: face with proper mask (FWPM), face with improper mask (FWIPM), and face without a mask (FWOM). Further, our proposed model identifies and classifies the types of face masks in two classes, which are N-95 and a surgical mask”, [pg. 15, 3.3.7. Convolution Neural Netowork (CNN), par. 3, ln. 1-17]). The motivation to combine remains analogous to claim 5, and is further disclosed in Hussain, wherein it allows for monitoring to determine if an individual is wearing a face mask for preventative measures against infectious diseases ([pg. 5, 1.4. Motivation and Contribution, par. 1, ln. 9-30]). Specifically, it would have been apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the message screen of Kato to operate analogues to the denial of access and/or additional screening as disclosed in Hussain, such that the valid authentication screen would be different depending on the state of the mask of the target person (e.g., if an individual is improperly or not wearing a mask, deny access or urge individual to wear mask properly, etc.). One of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, would have combined the device of Kato with the mask state determination as disclosed in Hussain, through known means, with no change to their respective function, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predicable results.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to combine the device of Kato with the mask state determination as disclosed in Hussain to obtain the invention as specified in claim 10.
23. Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Publication No. 2020/0143186 to Kato and further in view of U.S. Publication No. 2006/0204050 to Takizawa, and further in view of “IoT and Deep Learning Based Approach for Rapid Screening and Face Mask Detection for Infection Spread Control of COVID-19” to Hussain.
24. Regarding Claim 6, Kato disclose the device of claim 3. Kato further discloses wherein the processor generates a screen which includes the message for informing the target person {that the entering of the restricted admission area is not permitted}, as the input acceptance screen in the case where the entering of the restricted admission area is permitted for the target person by the face authentication {and a case where it is estimated that the target person is in a poor physical condition} ([Fig. 6-8, 10] see SF12, SF14, SF144, and SF20, see specifically Fig. 8 wherein admission would be permitted according to apparatus 210 performing the same face authentication as apparatus 10 of Kato if the face authentication confirms admissibility of user, see [par. 0120, ln. 1-12], [par. 0121, ln.1-6], [par. 0123, ln. 1-13], [par. 0124, ln. 1-4]). Specifically, Kato discloses informing the user when face authentication fails, but does not specifically generate a message that entering the restricted admission area is not permitted. Furthermore, while Kato discloses generating a message for the case where the entering of the restricted admission area is permitted for the target person by the face authentication, Kato does not specifically disclose wherein generating a message that entering the restricted admission are is not permitted and a case where it is estimated that the target person is in a poor physical condition.
However, Takizawa teaches to generate a message that the entering of the restricted admission area is not permitted ([par. 0046, ln. 1-6], [par. 0047, ln. 1-8]). The motivation to combine remains analogous to claim 4, specifically, in that it could improve user understanding (e.g., of the purpose of the face authentication). One of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, would have combined the device of Kato with the informing messages of Takizawa through known means, with no change to their respective function, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predicable results. However, Takizawa fails to disclose a case where the message that the entering of the restricted admission area is not permitted is generated in a case where it is estimated that the target person is in a poor physical condition. Therefore, a combination of Kato and Takizawa fails to teach a case where it is estimated that the target person is in a poor physical condition.
However, Hussain teaches to deny individuals in a case where it is estimated that the target person is in a poor physical condition ([pg. 15, 3.3.7. Convolution Neural Netowork (CNN), par. 3, ln. 1-17], [pg. 5, 1.4. Motivation and Contribution, par. 1, ln. 9-30], [pg. 10, 3.2. Body Temperature Detection, par. 1, ln. 1 to par. 2, ln. 15]). Specifically, one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, would recognize that Hussain specifically teaches to determine a person is in poor physical condition (i.e. possibly infected with COVID-19 and/or has a fever), based on a body temperature measurement, and to direct the individual to further screening as opposed to allowing access to the restricted area. The motivation to combine remains analogous to claim 5, specifically, one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, would recognize that preventing access to individuals in poor physical conditions would function as a preventative measure against infectious diseases ([pg. 5, 1.4. Motivation and Contribution, par. 1, ln. 9-30]). Specifically, this is analogous to social distancing by preventing a possibly infected individual from spreading whatever they’re infected with, and is particularly relevant to healthcare settings (e.g., hospital waiting room, patient visitation, entrance to sterile environments such as surgery rooms). One of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, would have therefore modified the device of the combination of Kato and Takizawa to determine if an individual is in poor physical condition, analogous to Hussain, and specifically have modified the message of the device of the combination of Kato and Takizawa to generate a message that the entering of the restricted admission area is not permitted to a case where it is estimated that the target person is in a poor physical condition, so as to prevent the spread of infectious diseases (e.g. flu, Covid-19). One of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, would have combined the device of the combination of Kato and Takizawa with the restricted access to individuals in poor physical condition as described in Hussain, through known means, with no change to their respective function, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to combine the device of Kato with the informing messages of Takizawa and the restricted access to individuals in poor physical condition of Hussain to obtain the invention as specified in claim 6.
25. Claims 11 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Publication No. 2020/0143186 to Kato and further in view of U.S. Publication No. 2023/0169508 to Murakami et al. (hereinafter Murakami).
26. Regarding Claim 11, Kato discloses the device of claim 8. Kato further discloses wherein the processor generates a different screen {depending on an attribute of the target person}, as the input acceptance screen in a state where the face authentication is successful for the target person ([Fig. 6-8, 10] see SF12, SF14, SF144, and SF20, see specifically Fig. 8 wherein admission would be permitted according to apparatus 210 performing the same face authentication as apparatus 10 of Kato if the face authentication confirms admissibility of user, see [par. 0120, ln. 1-12], [par. 0121, ln.1-6], [par. 0123, ln. 1-13], [par. 0124, ln. 1-4]). Kato does not specifically disclose the generated screen different depending on an attribute of the target person.
However, Murakami teaches wherein the generated screen is different depending on an attribute of the target person ([Fig. 7D], [par. 0048, ln. 1-20] “…The face management server 25 stores and manages user data such as name and face information (face ID, face image) for each registered user. The face matching server 26 performs the face recognition operation in response to a request for face recognition from the checkout counter 1…”, [par. 0049, ln. 1-12] “The database server 16 stores and manages various types of information. Specifically, the database server stores user management information registered in a user database, such as payment ID, face ID, user ID, password, and office code for each user...”, [par. 0098, ln. 1-7] “The face recognition result confirmation screen shown in FIG. 7C displays a user’s face image 123 and a guidance message 126 for inquiring the user if the user’s name is correct. The face recognition result confirmation screen includes a “yes” button 127 and a “no” button 128. When the user operates the “no” button 128, the screen transitions to the user ID selection screen (see FIG. 9A).”, [par. 0099, ln. 1-13] “In cases where the user operates the “yes” button 127 in the face recognition result confirmation screen, when there is no age-restricted item among the items to be purchased by the user, the screen changes to a password recognition screen (see FIG. 8A). When the items to be purchased by the user include one or more age-restricted items, the checkout counter makes age verification on the user identified by face recognition. When the user reaches a specific age (minimum age) that allows for purchase of age-restricted items, the screen transitions to a password recognition screen (see FIG. 8A). When the user has not reached the specific age (minimum age), the screen transitions to an error screen (see FIG. 7D).”). One of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, would recognize Kato and Murakami as within the same field of face recognition for security systems, and as analogous to the claimed invention. Specifically, one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, would recognize that the attribute information of Murakami (i.e., age) is specifically used in the case where the face is successfully recognized to generate a different message screen. The motivation to combine would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, in that attribute information is directly relevant to individuals’ identity and can serve as additional verification of access to a restricted area (e.g., Murakami also stored ID information which can be used to verify identity/face), and therefore can serve to validate face identification or further allow access to a restricted area. One of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, would have combined the device of Kato with the attribute information screen generation of Murakami though known means, with no change to their respective function, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predicable results.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to combine the device of Kato with the attribute information screen generation of Murakami to obtain the inventio as specified in claim 11.
27. Regarding Claim 12, Kato discloses the device of claim 1. Rejections analogous to claim 11 are further applicable to claim 12. Specifically, one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, would recognize the “input acceptance screen” of Kato to also be a menu screen ([Fig. 6-8, 10] see SF12, SF14, SF144, and SF20, see specifically Fig. 8 wherein admission would be permitted according to apparatus 210 performing the same face authentication as apparatus 10 of Kato if the face authentication confirms admissibility of user, see [par. 0120, ln. 1-12], [par. 0121, ln.1-6], [par. 0123, ln. 1-13], [par. 0124, ln. 1-4]). Likewise, the screen of Murakami would constitute a different “menu” screen generated based on the attribute information after successful facial recognition ([Fig. 7D], [par. 0048, ln. 1-20], [par. 0049, ln. 1-12], [par. 0098, ln. 1-7], [par. 0099, ln. 1-13]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to combine the device of Kato with the attribute information screen generation of Murakami to obtain the inventio as specified in claim 12.
Conclusion
28. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure. See PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PAULO ANDRES GARCIA whose telephone number is (703)756-5493. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri, 8-4:30PM ET.
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, Chan Park can be reached on (571)272-7409. 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.
/PAULO ANDRES GARCIA/Examiner, Art Unit 2669 /CHAN S PARK/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2669
Prosecution Insights