Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim 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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5-10, 12-17 and 19-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mann ( U. S. Pat. No. 6,119,096) in view of Jones (U.S. Pat. 8,589,075).
With respect to claim 1, Mann teaches an information processing apparatus, comprising a memory (well known structural element found in a computer 104 or database 106). Mann teaches a processor ( System 2100 host processor/central enrollment system – see col. 5, lines 10-12). Mann teaches receiving a facial scan at a first stage which is the registration stage (col. 5, lines 5-6).
Mann teaches the processor (defined as System 2100) for updating the status of a user as they move from one stage to a plurality of stages. At least one stage could be considered the completion of the first stage.
Mann teaches comparison of the face image with a plurality of other facial features from other faces (col. 5, lines 8-10, see also lines 29-34).
What is not specifically stated by Mann is the use of a display for displaying user information to a selected user.
Jones teaches a method and system for visualizing the progress of a trip. A user may select the user’s route information so that the route and route style is sent to the user’s device (100n). Such user device is well known and may be comprised of a smartphone, tablet, computer or laptop, see col. 3, lines 16-17. The output information, is the completion of at least one segment which may consist of a plurality of segments. The information of the selected user, the user for which display trip progress information is designated for, has displayed the information of the stage (completion of at least one segment) of a plurality or segments wherein the sum of all plurality of segments constitutes the total progress of the trip. .
Since Mann and Jones are both directed to systems of travel, the purpose of displaying user information to a selected user via the user’s device would have been contemplated by Mann as set forth by Jones.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the System 2100 host processor of Mann so that it includes a processor 318 and memory 322 of Jones for displaying user information at different stages using facial recognition so that the information is selectively displayed on a user device.
With respect to claim 2, Mann teaches status information such that a user is discriminated as having receive a first facial recognition scan, identifying the user as being at a first stage. Mann also teaches that a second location (illustrated by block 616) that at least one user is discriminated as being at a second location (col. 17, lines 41-52), regarding at least a second stage being a boarding stage of the user. The motivation for this rejection is the same as that to claim 1.
With respect to claim 3, Mann teaches a biometric scanner 112 that serves as a camera for taking a facial image of at least one user at a plurality of different stages. The motivation for this rejection is the same as that to claim 1.
With respect to claim 5, Mann teaches all of the subject matter upon which the claim depends except
for displaying user information to a selected user. Mann also does not teach receiving a user input to select a user.
Jones teaches a display 102 so that a user of the display device can select user information identifying the completed stages by the selected user.
Jones teaches a method and system for visualizing the progress of a trip. A user may select the user’s route information so that the route and route style is sent to the user’s device (100n). Such user device is well known and may be comprised of a smartphone, tablet, computer or laptop, see col. 3, lines 16-17. Moreover, the smartphone, tablet, computer or laptop, has an interface function which allows the user to interface with the device in order to determine the stages of completion, within the travelling environment. The output information, is the completion of at least one segment which may consist of a plurality of segments. The information of the selected user, the user for which display trip progress information is designated for, has displayed the information of the stage (completion of at least one segment) of a plurality or segments wherein the sum of all plurality of segments constitutes the total progress of the trip.
Since Mann and Jones are both directed to systems of travel, the purpose of displaying user information to a selected user via the user’s device would have been contemplated by Mann as set forth by Jones.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the System 2100 host processor of Mann so that it includes a processor 318 and memory 322 of Jones for displaying user information at different stages using facial recognition so that the information is selectively displayed on a user device.
With respect to claim 6, Mann teaches all of the subject matter upon which the claim depends except for providing a history of the last known positions of the user and displaying this information to the user by a user display device.
Jones teaches the use of a progress bar 110 which highlights the history of the segments of travel which have been completed. Jones suggests that a plurality of segments may comprise a total segment from registration at a kiosk, for example, to boarding a vessel, such as a plane, as the final stage.
Since Mann and Jones are both directed to systems of travel, the purpose of discerning which stages of plural stages have been completed, would have been recognized by Mann as set forth by Jones.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective fling date of the claimed invention, to modify the System 2100 of Mann so that it includes the processor 318 and memory 322 of Hones, for providing a history of segments or places travelled prior to or leading up to, based on facial recognition sensor 112 taught by Mann.
With respect to claim 7, Mann teaches at a second location, (illustrated by block 616) where a user will receive an additional scan (col. 17, lines 41-52). The second scan relates to a boarding pass. The motivation for the rejection is the same as that to claim 1.
With respect to claim 8, Mann teaches an information processing method wherein a facial image at a first stage is registered. Mann teaches comparing facial images with a plurality of other facial features from other faces stored in a database. See col.. 5, lines 8-10 and lines 29-34).
Mann teaches using facial scanner to obtain facial images at a second location (illustrated by block 616). Furthermore, Mann teaches that the user will receive an additional scan (see col. 17, lines 41-52) The second scan relates to a stage different from the first stage, such as a boarding stage onto an aircraft.
What is not specifically staged by Mann is the use of a display for displaying update information in accordance with other second data stages.
Jones teaches a method and system for visualizing the progress of a trip. A user may select the user’s route information so that the route and route style is sent to the user’s device (100n). Such a user device is well known and may be comprised of a smartphone, or laptop, see col. 3, lines 16-17. The output information, constitutes the completion of at least one segment which may consist of a plurality of segments. The information of the selected user, includes progress information, which displays information regarding the completion of at least one segment), of a plurality of segments, wherein the sum of all plurality of segments constitutes the total progress of the trip.
Since Mann and Jones are both directed to systems of travel, the purpose of updating information in accordance with completed stages of completion, would have been recognized by Mann as set forth by Jones.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the System Processor of Mann so that it includes the processor 318 and memory 322 of Jones for detailing the progress of different stages as a user is identified at different locations using facial recognition.
With respect to claim 9, Mann teaches the update of the status of a plurality of users.
Jones also teaches updating the status of at least one user.
Mann, however, does not teach the use of displaying the status information at different stages. The motivation for the rejection is the same as that to claim 8 above.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the System Processor of Mann so that it includes the processor 318 and memory 322 of Jones for detailing the progress of different stages as a user is identified at different locations using facial recognition.
With respect to claim 10, Mann teaches the use of a biometric scanner 112 for provided a facial image of the user at different stages. The motivation for this rejection is the same as to claim 8.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the System Processor of Mann so that it includes the processor 318 and memory 322 of Jones for detailing the progress of different stages, by taking a biometric facial scan of the user as identified at different stages.
With respect to claim 12, Mann teaches all of the subject matter upon which the claim depends except for displaying the update information and selecting a user so that the status information indicates to the suer the stage of a plurality of stages that have been completed.
Jones teaches a method and system for visualizing the progress of a trip. A user may select the user’s route information so that the route and route style is sent to the user’s device (100n), The user devise is well known and may be comprised of a smart phone, tablet, computer or laptop, see col. 3, lines 16-17. The output information, is the completion of at least one segment which may consist of a plurality of segments. The user device displays user information regarding the stage (completion of at least one segment) of a plurality of segments, wherein the sum of all plurality of segments constitutes the total progress of the trip. The motivation for this rejections is the same as that to claim 8.
With respect to claim 13, Mann teaches all of the subject matter upon which the claim depends except for providing a history of the last known positions of the user and displaying this information to the user by a user display device.
Jones teaches the use of a progress bar 110 which highlights the history of the segments of travel which have been completed. Jones suggests that a plurality of segments may comprise a total segment from registration at a kiosk, for example, to boarding a vessel, such as a plane, as the final stage.
Since Mann and Jones are both directed to systems of travel, the purpose of discerning which stages of plural stages have been completed, would have been recognized by Mann as set forth by Jones.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective fling date of the claimed invention, to modify the System 2100 of Mann so that it includes the processor 318 and memory 322 of Hones, for providing a history of segments or places travelled prior to or leading up to, based on facial recognition sensor 112 taught by Mann.
With regard to claim 14, Mann teaches the update of the status of a plurality of users. This includes the second user as claimed.
Jones also teaches updating the status of at least one user. Therefore, Jones suggests that multiple users will be able to ascertain their status information.
Mann, however, does not teach the use of displaying the status information at different stages. The motivation for the rejection is the same as that to claim 8 above.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the System Processor of Mann so that it includes the processor 318 and memory 322 of Jones for detailing the progress of different stages as a user is identified at different locations using facial recognition.
With respect to claim 15, Mann teaches a non-transitory storage medium which is based well known structural elements found in a computer 104, for running the software system as described at col. 5, lines 10-12.
Mann teaches the processor (defined as System 2100) for updating the status of a user as they move from one stage to a plurality of stages. At least one stage could be considered the completion of the first stage.
Mann teaches comparison of the face image with a plurality of other facial features from other faces (col. 5, lines 8-10, see also lines 29-34).
What is not specifically stated by Mann is the use of a display for displaying user information to a selected user. Mann also does not teach receiving a user input to select a user.
Jones teaches a method and system for visualizing the progress of a trip. A user may select the user’s route information so that the route and route style is sent to the user’s device (100n). Such user device is well known and may be comprised of a smartphone, tablet, computer or laptop, see col. 3, lines 16-17. Moreover, the smartphone, tablet, computer or laptop, has an interface function which allows the user to interface with the device in order to determine the stages of completion, within the travelling environment. The output information, is the completion of at least one segment which may consist of a plurality of segments. The information of the selected user, the user for which display trip progress information is designated for, has displayed the information of the stage (completion of at least one segment) of a plurality or segments wherein the sum of all plurality of segments constitutes the total progress of the trip.
Since Mann and Jones are both directed to systems of travel, the purpose of displaying user information to a selected user via the user’s device would have been contemplated by Mann as set forth by Jones.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the System 2100 host processor of Mann so that it includes a processor 318 and memory 322 of Jones for displaying user information at different stages using facial recognition so that the information is selectively displayed on a user device.
With respect to claim 16, Mann teaches status information such that a user is discriminated as having receive a first facial recognition scan, identifying the user as being at a first stage. Mann also teaches that a second location (illustrated by block 616) that at least one user is discriminated as being at a second location (col. 17, lines 41-52), regarding at least a second stage being a boarding stage of the user. The motivation for this rejection is the same as that to claim 15.
With respect to claim 17, Mann teaches a biometric scanner 112 that serves as a camera for taking a facial image of at least one user at a plurality of different stages. The motivation for this rejection is the same as that to claim 15.
With respect to claim 19, Mann teaches all of the subject matter upon which the claim depends except
for displaying user information to a selected user. Mann also does not teach receiving a user input to select a user.
Jones teaches a display 102 so that a user of the display device can select user information identifying the completed stages by the selected user.
Jones teaches a method and system for visualizing the progress of a trip. A user may select the user’s route information so that the route and route style is sent to the user’s device (100n). Such user device is well known and may be comprised of a smartphone, tablet, computer or laptop, see col. 3, lines 16-17. Moreover, the smartphone, tablet, computer or laptop, has an interface function which allows the user to interface with the device in order to determine the stages of completion, within the travelling environment. The output information, is the completion of at least one segment which may consist of a plurality of segments. The information of the selected user, the user for which display trip progress information is designated for, has displayed the information of the stage (completion of at least one segment) of a plurality or segments wherein the sum of all plurality of segments constitutes the total progress of the trip.
Since Mann and Jones are both directed to systems of travel, the purpose of displaying user information to a selected user via the user’s device would have been contemplated by Mann as set forth by Jones.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the System 2100 host processor of Mann so that it includes a processor 318 and memory 322 of Jones for displaying user information at different stages using facial recognition so that the information is selectively displayed on a user device.
With respect to claim 20, Mann teaches all of the subject matter upon which the claim depends except for providing a history of the last known positions of the user and displaying this information to the user by a user display device.
Jones teaches the use of a progress bar 110 which highlights the history of the segments of travel which have been completed. Jones suggests that a plurality of segments may comprise a total segment from registration at a kiosk, for example, to boarding a vessel, such as a plane, as the final stage.
Since Mann and Jones are both directed to systems of travel, the purpose of discerning which stages of plural stages have been completed, would have been recognized by Mann as set forth by Jones.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective fling date of the claimed invention, to modify the System 2100 of Mann so that it includes the processor 318 and memory 322 of Hones, for providing a history of segments or places travelled prior to or leading up to, based on facial recognition sensor 112 taught by Mann.
With respect to claim 21, Mann teaches at a second location, (illustrated by block 616) where a user will receive an additional scan (col. 17, lines 41-52). The second scan relates to a boarding pass. The motivation for this rejections is the same as that to claim 15.
Claim(s) 4, 11 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mann in view of Jones further in view of KR 101997110.
With respect to claim 4, Mann in view of Jones teaches all of the subject matter upon which the claim depends, as recited in the rejection to claim 1, above. The Mann reference does not particularly state that the updated information is related to flight information.
The 110 reference teaches an airplane boarding number, see the top of page 3, using facial recognition, where the image is stored in a management server at step S11. The storage and use of passport information is set forth in steps S16-S19.
It would have been recognized by one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, that within the passport is “nationality information” since the originator of the passport is one who is based on having a nationality.
Since the 110 reference teaches the elements of claim 4, for example using facial recognition to assist in airport travelling, the Examiner contends that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claim ed invention to combine the teachings of the 110 reference in combination with Mann in view of Jones wherein such output information is to be displayed including the identification of the user.
With respect to claim 11, Mann in view of Jones teaches the combination of displaying information regarding one or more users at a plurality of different stages. What is not specifically taught is that the information that is updated is flight information.
The 110 reference teaches an airplane boarding number, see the top of page 3, where it teaches use of facial recognition . The image is stored in a management server at step S12, the storage and use of passport information, see steps S16-S19.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing of the claimed invention, for one of ordinary skill in the art to recognize that within the passport is “nationality information” for at least the reason the originator of the passport is from a nation, therefore the user has a nationality.
With respect to claim 18, Mann in view of Jones teaches all of the subject matter upon which the claim depends, as recited in the rejection to claim 15, above. The Mann reference does not particularly state that the updated information is related to flight information.
The 110 reference teaches an airplane boarding number, see the top of page 3, using facial recognition, where the image is stored in a management server at step S11. The storage and use of passport information is set forth in steps S16-S19.
It would have been recognized by one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, that within the passport is “nationality information” since the originator of the passport is one who is based on having a nationality.
Since the 110 reference teaches using facial recognition to assist in airport travelling, the Examiner contends that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claim ed invention to combine the teachings of updating flight information, as set forth by the 110 reference in combination with Mann in view of Jones wherein such output information is to be displayed including the identification of the user.
Non-Statutory Double Patenting Rejection
The non-statutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A non-statutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on non-statutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a non-statutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 6 and 7 are rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 2 and 4 of U.S. Patent No. 11,610,438. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other for the reasons set forth below.
Claim 1 of the application is broader than claim 2 of the patent.
Claim 1 of the application refers to a memory for storing instructions. This is recited at line 2 of the patent.
Claim 1 of the application refers to a processor for executing the instructions. This limitation is recited in the third line of the patent.
Claim 1 recites receiving a first facial image as claimed. This is recited in the fourteen line of claim 1 of the patent.
Claim 1 recites displaying information to a selected user. The first limitation of claim 2 recites the identification of one of more users and displaying to a list of users, those who have completed a second stage. Hence, the status of one or more users is revealed to those users as recited in claim 2 of the patent.
Claim 2 of the application recites that the information is status information regarding the status of the completion of one or more stages. This is recited in claim 2 of the patent.
Claim 4 of the application recites display information of one or more users at different stages. This corresponds with claim 2 of the patent in combination with the last limitation of patent claim 1. Claim 2, in combination with claim1, recites a display of a list of users regarding the completion of stage 1 and an unfinished or failure to complete the second stage.
Claim 5 of the application recites receiving a user input regarding a user. Claim 4 of the patent recites a graphic user interface for obtaining the status of each of the users. The graphic user interface also has a display for displaying the status information of the plurality of users.
Claim 6 of the application recites a history of the stages of the users. Similarly, in claim 1 of the patent, it recites a “register” makes reference to a list for storing the stage information of a plurality of users. Hence, the register with the list of users constitutes a history.
Claim 7 of the application recites a processor for displaying second facial information. This limitation is suggested by claim 2 of the patent where it states one or more users are identified regarding the status of them having completed a second stage. The third -fifth limitations of claim 1 recite identification of users using facial information.
Claims 15-21 are rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 7, 10 and 13 of U.S. Patent No. 12,045,754. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other for the reasons set forth below.
Claim 15 of the application recites a non-transitory storage medium for storing a program that causes a computer to perform for performing a method. Claim 13 of the patent recites the same preamble.
The first limitation of the claim recites receiving first facial images among a plurality of stages. This claimed feature corresponds with the first limitation of claim 13 of the patent wherein the patent states “… receiving one or more first facial images, from at least one stage, among a plurality of stages between a check-in stage and a boarding stage.”
The second limitation of claim 15 recites: updating information indicating the presence of each user based on a comparison between a first facial image and a plurality of second facial images. This feature corresponds with the second limitation of claim 15, wherein updating information indicating a presence of one or more passengers in the corresponding at least one stage based on a comparison of each of the one or more first facial images with a plurality of second facial images registered at the check-in stage.
The last limitation of the claim refers to displaying selected information. This limitation corresponds with the last limitation of claim 13 of the patent wherein it states: displaying the information and a second facial image corresponding to a selected passenger on the display.
What is not specifically shown are facial images acquired by a camera. Claim 10 of the patent recites the same method steps, the only different is the limitation of the steps being implemented by a computer. For example, claim 10 recites that a camera generates one or more facial images.
Hence, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use a camera as a means for generating facial images at each of the different stages in which facial identification is needed to check the progress of the user, as provided by the motivation provided by claim 10 of the patent.
With respect to claim 16, of the application, the limitation recites status information regarding one or more users with respect to a plurality of stages. This limitation corresponds with claim 15 of the patent.
With respect to claim 17 of the application, it recites one or more facial images from one or more cameras at one or more stages.
What is not specifically shown are facial images acquired by a camera.
However, the combination of claims 10 and 13 of the patent seem to suggest this claimed limitation. Claim 10 of the patent recites the same method steps, the only different is the limitation of the steps being implemented by a computer. For example, claim 10 recites a computer implemented method that instructs a camera to generate one or more facial images from at least one stage.
Since the patent specifically sets forth a computer implemented method for generating facial images using a camera, the use of a camera would have been suggested in a non-transitory computer readable medium
Hence, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use a camera as a means for generating facial images at each of the different stages in which facial identification is needed to check the progress of the user, as provided by the motivation provided by claim 10 of the patent.
Claim 18 of the application recites displaying information about one or more uses and their flight information. This claimed feature corresponds with claim 11 of the patent. Since the patent specifically sets forth a computer implemented method for generating facial images using a camera, the use of a camera for displaying user information along with flight information is specifically set forth by claim 11 of the patent.
Hence, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use a camera as a means for generating facial images at each of the different stages in which facial identification is needed to check the progress of the user and to provide the flight status of each user as set forth by claim 11 of the patent.
With respect to claim 19 of the application, this corresponds with claim 12 of the patent.
Since the patent specifically sets forth a computer implemented method for generating facial images using a camera, the use of a camera would have been suggested in a non-transitory computer readable medium
Hence, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use a camera as a means for generating facial images at each of the different stages in which facial identification is needed to check the progress of the user, for displaying and receiver user input regarding the plurality of stages the user has been identified as visited.
With respect to claim 20 of the application, this limitation corresponds with claim 8 wherein history information of one or more users is displayed at one or more stages.
Since the patent specifically sets forth a computer implemented method for generating facial images using a camera, the use of a camera would have been suggested in a non-transitory computer readable medium
Hence, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use a camera as a means for generating facial images at each of the different stages in which facial identification is needed to check the progress of the user, for displaying the history of the stages of the plurality of users having been selected as being displayed.
With respect to claim 21 of the application, the claim recites displaying information and a second facial image of the user.
This claim corresponds with the last two limitations of claim 7 of the patent. Claim 7 recites: displaying the information and a second facial image corresponding to a selected user.
Since the patent specifically sets forth a computer implemented method for generating facial images using a camera, the use of a camera would have been suggested in a non-transitory computer readable medium
Hence, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use a camera as a means for generating facial images at each of the different stages in which facial identification is needed to check the progress of the user. Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing data of the claimed invention, to display user information along with different facial image information of the user as set forth by claim 7 of the patent.
Citation of Relevant Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
The WO2010116969 reference teaches a monitoring system that tracks or monitors a suspicious person or a designated person making multiple travelling excursions from a first to a second position. The system uses multiple cameras to monitor the person making multiple waling excursions (from a beginning place at a first time to a first end place at a first end time). The system monitors multiple waling excursions. The monitoring system uses a tracking information generation unit, a tracking information storage unit, a tracking information notification unit and a travel time distribution data generation unit.
The Ishikawa reference (JP2011165082) teaches detecting facial recognition and extracting different features of the face of an athlete or gamer. The facial features are then compared to those stored in a database. A gamer/athlete is permitted to enter different pachinko establishments and is tracked.
The Kamise reference (JP2018109935) teaches the face image of a traveler holding a passport is taken. The face image of the passport holder is registered in the IC chip of the passport and is read out. The gate device controls the opening and closing of the gate and permits the passage of a traveler who has been identified along with a number of other faces.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JEROME GRANT II whose telephone number is (571)272-7463. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m..
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, Nay Maung can be reached at 571-272-7882. 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.
/JEROME GRANT II/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2664