CTFR 18/837,219 CTFR 80271 Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. DETAILED ACTION The communication received on 2/5/26 has been entered. Response to Arguments/Amendments In light of applicant arguments/amendments the objections and the 35 USC § 112 rejections are withdrawn. As per the art rejection, applicant essentially argues the newly added limitations. These limitations are addressed in the rejection below. Claims 1-10 and newly presented claims 11-19 are pending. Claim 12 overcame the art of record. 07-103 AIA The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 The (newly amended) limitations of claim 5 continue to be convoluted and within the context of the claimed invention are confusing to a reader. They require the tracked authentication target person being the same person as the non-tracked authentication person and even appear to suggest that the head of the tracked person and not-tracked person is the same. As a result, the examiner is unable to clearly ascertain the scope of the claim. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 Claim(s) 1-2 and 9-10 and 14-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) unpatentable over Okuyama (USPUB 20200159908) in view of Telagn (USPUB 20180357422), Meade (20230205867) or Bradley (USPUB 20170289134). As seen in any of Fig. 4-5 and 8-9 with the associated text Okuyama teaches the previously presented limitation of claims 1-2 and 9-10 and 13-19 with the exception of the newly added limitation. Specifically, While Okuyama teaches performing face authentication of the target person, it fails to address the newly introduced limitation which essentially requires repeating the process (reauthenticating the face authentication of the person again) within the predetermined period from the initial authentication. However, such solution would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed as illustrated by various prior art e.g., Telang (para 557), Meade (para 13) or Bradley (para 74), while including such teaching would offer the benefit of increased security. Claim(s) 1-5, 7-11 and 14-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) unpatentable over Kawase (WO2020115890, received from applicant on 8/9/24) in view of Telagn (USPUB 20180357422), Meade (20230205867) or Bradley (USPUB 20170289134). As seen in any of Fig. 1-7 and 10-13 with the associated text Kawase teaches the previously presented limitation of claims 1 and 9-10 and 13-19 with the exception of the newly added limitation, and also addresses the limitations of claims 7-8 in para 75, 107-110 and 120-128, for example. As per the newly added limitation Kawase teaches performing face authentication of the target person, it fails to address the newly introduced limitation which essentially requires repeating the process (reauthenticating the face authentication of the person again) within the predetermined period from the initial authentication. However, such solution would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed as illustrated by various prior art e.g., Telang (para 557), Meade (para 13) or Bradley (para 74), while including such teaching would offer the benefit of increased security. As per claims 2, 14 and 17, clearly even single non successful authentication of the authentication target person tracked in the predetermined area could be interpreted as failure. The superimposed labels “NG”, “OK” and “Unidentified” person disclosed in Fig. 14 and discussed in the associated text meet the limitations of claims 3-4, 15-16 and 18-19with the exception of the area where the superimposing information indicating status of the authentication is placed. Specifically, Kawase does not superimpose this information on the face of the target person. However, the examiner asserts that superimposing such information in any particular area associated to the particular person, including on the body or the face of the person, would have been an obvious variant merely amounting to a design choice, while not affecting the functionality of the invention and providing the predictable benefit of customization. Furthermore, given the fact that the prior art clearly illustrates the displayed information clearly being tight to a relevant person, having such information in any particular related to the user area would have been obvious variant bearing unexpected results. Similarly, as per claim 11, the examiner asserts that having any particular display (e.g., a face image of the authentication target person) in any particular place (e.g., at a corner of the image) and any particular time (e.g., time the person is under evaluation, failed or succeeded authentication) would amount to the nonfunctional descriptive material and would not alter the invention as claimed (the tracking and authenticating a person would be performed the same regardless what and where a particular object is displayed), and at most would have been an obvious variant offering the predictable benefit of customization. As per claim 5, as best understood, clearly Kawase’ as modified the facial authentication of the person would not be limited to a single authentication but each time a person comes in within the area. The person at the second time could be interpreted as “non-tracked authentication target person”. Furthermore, in additional (not clear whether the limitation requires such) interpretation of the claim, Official Notice is taken that “dynamic” authentication where each time action (such as authentication) is performed and the data is stored for more precise, updated match, would have been old and well known in the art of computing while offering the predictable benefit of accuracy. Claim(s) 6 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) unpatentable over Kawase (WO2020115890, received from applicant on 8/9/24) in view of Telagn (USPUB 20180357422), Meade (20230205867) or Bradley (USPUB 20170289134), and further in view of Yamazaki (USPUB 20090189984) or Wang (USPUB 20190019017). Kawase teaches tracking the authentication target person as discussed above. Kawase as modified does not teach the number of the target person in the predetermine area being greater than a predetermined number. However, in the related art Yamazaki or Wang teaches such solution (authenticating/verification people in the area increases with increasing number of people, Yamazaki para 8 or detecting the passage of people through an associated passageway, identifying and location people of interest in a scene, Wang para 3 and 11, for example). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to include the target person in the predetermine area being greater than a predetermined number as taught by Yamazaki or Wang given the benefit of scalability. Given the fact that the tracking in Kawase’s as modified is a tool to authenticate/identify a particular individual, recognition of the increased number (e.g., more than one) of individual would require longer processing/tracking. Claim(s) 6 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) unpatentable over Okuyama (USPUB 20200159908) in view of Telagn (USPUB 20180357422), Meade (20230205867) or Bradley (USPUB 20170289134) , and further in view of Yamazaki (USPUB 20090189984) or Wang (USPUB 20190019017). Kawase teaches tracking the authentication target person as discussed above. Okuyama as modified does not teach the number of the target person in the predetermine area being greater than a predetermined number. However, in the related art Yamazaki or Wang teaches such solution (authenticating/verification people in the area increases with increasing number of people, Yamazaki para 8 or detecting the passage of people through an associated passageway, identifying and location people of interest in a scene, Wang para 3 and 11, for example). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to include the target person in the predetermine area being greater than a predetermined number as taught by Yamazaki or Wang given the benefit of scalability. Given the fact that the tracking in Kawase’s as modified is a tool to authenticate/identify a particular individual, recognition of the increased number (e.g., more than one) of individual would require longer processing/tracking. Conclusion Allowable Subject Matter 12-151-08 AIA 07-43 12-51-08 Claim s 12 is are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. 07-40 AIA Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL . See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a). A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Peter Poltorak whose telephone number is (571) 272-3840. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Thursday from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jeffrey Pwu can be reached on (571) 272-6798. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273-8300. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). /PIOTR POLTORAK/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2433 Application/Control Number: 18/837,219 Page 2 Art Unit: 2433 Application/Control Number: 18/837,219 Page 3 Art Unit: 2433 Application/Control Number: 18/837,219 Page 4 Art Unit: 2433 Application/Control Number: 18/837,219 Page 5 Art Unit: 2433 Application/Control Number: 18/837,219 Page 7 Art Unit: 2433 Application/Control Number: 18/837,219 Page 8 Art Unit: 2433 Application/Control Number: 18/837,219 Page 9 Art Unit: 2433
Prosecution Insights