Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 10/8/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 8, 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Nada et. al. (International Patent Application WO 2022/130616-A1) .
Regarding claim 1, Nada et. al. discloses an information processing system comprising: at least one first memory that is configured to store instructions; and at least one processor that is configured to execute the instructions to:
sequentially acquires face information on a face area detected from captured images sequentially captured;
sequentially stores the acquired face information in a second memory;
perform an extraction operation of extracting a feature quantity from each piece of face information that is at least a part serving as an extraction target, of pieces of face information stored in the second memory, in a case where a predetermined condition is satisfied; and
perform face authentication using the feature quantity (Nada et. al. [0037]-[0038], [0091]-[0097], Fig. 13).
PNG
media_image1.png
251
872
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
638
882
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 8, which is an information processing method, corresponding to the system of claim 1, which the rejection analysis is incorporated herein.
Regarding claim 9, which is a non-transitory recording medium on which a computer program that allows a computer to execute an information processing method is recorded, the information processing method, corresponding to the method of claim 8 and system of claim 1, which the rejection is incorporated herein.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claim 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Nada et. al. (International Patent Application WO 2022/130616-A1) in view Oami (International Patent Application WO 2023047572 A1).
The applied reference has a common assignee with the instant application. Based upon the earlier effectively filed date of the reference, it constitutes prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2).
Regarding claim 2, Nada et. al. discloses the information processing system according to claim 1, and the face information includes a face image in the face area. However, Nada et. al. fails to disclose wherein the at least one processor uses a GPU resource for the extraction operation.
Oami teaches wherein the at least one processor uses a GPU resource for the extraction operation (Oami [0016] The processor 11 may include, for example, one or more of the following: CPU (Central Processing Unit), GPU (Graphics Processing Unit), FPGA (field-programmable gate array); DSP (Demand-Side Platform), ASIC (Application Specific Integrated Circuit). The processor 11 may be configured with one of these, or may be configured to use a plurality of these in parallel.). This is important to the claimed invention because a GPU is architecturally distinct from the structure of a CPU used in Nada et. al. The GPU allows the processors to execute the programmed methods in parallel, with high memory bandwidth for face information storage. Thus, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the teachings of Nada et. al. and Oami so that one of the processors uses GPU resources.
This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 might be overcome by: (1) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(a) that the subject matter disclosed in the reference was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor of this application and is thus not prior art in accordance with 35 U.S.C.102(b)(2)(A); (2) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(b) of a prior public disclosure under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(B); or (3) a statement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) establishing that, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the subject matter disclosed and the claimed invention were either owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person or subject to a joint research agreement. See generally MPEP § 717.02.
Claim(s) 3, 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nada et. al. (International Patent Application WO 2022/130616-A1) in view of Kono (Japanese Patent Application JP 2017142614-A).
Regarding claim 3, Nada et. al. discloses the information processing system according to claim 1, wherein the case where the predetermined condition is satisfied, includes at least one of a case where number of the pieces of face information stored in the second memory reaches a predetermined number. However, Nada et. al. fails to disclose and a case where a predetermined time elapses from a previous extraction operation.
Kono teaches and a case where a predetermined time elapses from a previous extraction operation (Kono [0024] A case is described in which the feature value extraction unit 31 extracts the feature values at regular time intervals, but the timing at which the feature values are extracted is not limited to the above-described example. When the amount of data at typing intervals stored in storage unit 13 becomes equal to or greater than a predetermined amount, the characteristic quantity may be extracted.). This is important to the claimed invention because the time elapsed from the previous extraction operation can significantly affect both the model performance and computational efficiency of the program. Regarding computational resources, the time between extraction steps can be optimized to balance quality and speed. Thus, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the teachings of Nada et. al. and Kono so that this time elapse limitation is included in the solution of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 4, Nada et. al. and Kono discloses the information processing system according to claim 3, and Kono further discloses wherein the at least one processor is configured to execute the instructions to change the predetermined number according to a change rate of the number of the pieces of face information stored in the second memory (Kono [0024] A case is described in which the feature value extraction unit 31 extracts the feature values at regular time intervals, but the timing at which the feature values are extracted is not limited to the above-described example. When the amount of data at typing intervals stored in storage unit 13 becomes equal to or greater than a predetermined amount, the characteristic quantity may be extracted.). This is important so that the computational resources are optimized according to the predetermined number. Thus, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the teachings of Nada et. al. and Kono so that the predetermined number limitation is included in the solution of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 5, 6, 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nada et. al. (International Patent Application WO 2022/130616-A1) in view of Kono (Japanese Patent Application JP 2017142614-A) as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Yamada (United States Patent Application Publication US 2021/0295000 A).
Regarding claim 5, Nada et. al. and Kono discloses the information processing system according to claim 3. However, Nada et. al. and Kono fail to disclose wherein the at least one processor is configured to execute the instructions to change the predetermined time according to a time from execution of the previous extraction operation by the extraction unit until the number of the pieces of face information stored in the second memory reaches the predetermined number.
Yamada teaches wherein the at least one processor is configured to execute the instructions to change the predetermined time according to a time from execution of the previous extraction operation by the extraction unit until the number of the pieces of face information stored in the second memory reaches the predetermined number (Yamada [0139]-[0145] The time required for decoding process is measured. It is also determined whether or not the decoding processing time is within a fastest imaging interval decoding time.). This is important to the claimed invention because regarding computational resources, the time between extraction steps can be optimized to balance quality and speed. Thus, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the teachings of Nada et. al., Kono, and Yamada so that this time elapse limitation is included in the solution of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 6, Nada et. al. and Kono disclose the information processing system according to claim 3. However, Nada et. al. and Kono fail to disclose wherein the at least one processor is configured to execute the instructions to: compare a time from start to completion of the extraction operation with the predetermined time, and change an imaging interval of sequential imaging.
Yamada teaches wherein the at least one processor is configured to execute the instructions to: compare a time from start to completion of the extraction operation with the predetermined time, and change an imaging interval of sequential imaging (Yamada [0139]-[0145] The time required for decoding process is measured. It is also determined whether or not the decoding processing time is within a fastest imaging interval decoding time.). This is important to the claimed invention because regarding computational resources, the time between extraction steps can be optimized to balance quality and speed. Thus, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the teachings of Nada et. al., Kono, and Yamada so that this time elapse limitation is included in the solution of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 7, Nada et. al., Kono and Yamada disclose the information processing system according to claim 6. Nada et. al. teaches wherein the face information includes a face image in the face area (Nada et. al. [0037]-[0038], [0091]-[0097], Fig. 13).
Kono teaches time information indicating a time regarding detection of the face area (Kono [0024] A case is described in which the feature value extraction unit 31 extracts the feature values at regular time intervals, but the timing at which the feature values are extracted is not limited to the above-described example. When the amount of data at typing intervals stored in storage unit 13 becomes equal to or greater than a predetermined amount, the characteristic quantity may be extracted.).
Nada et. al. teaches distance information indicating a distance from a location for the sequential imaging to a location of the face area (Nada et. al. [0050]-[0052] The selection section determines the distance between each feature point found in each facial region candidate and the same type of feature point found in other facial region candidate. The selection section will select one of the facial region candidates based on the distance requested), and the at least one processor is configured to execute the instructions to: determine priority of the pieces of face information stored in the second memory, according to the time information and the distance information, and select a piece of face information to be included in the extraction target, from the pieces of face information stored in the second memory, based on the priority (Nada et. al. [0037]-[0038], [0091]-[0097], Fig. 13).
These features are important to the claimed invention because regarding computational resources, the time between extraction steps can be optimized to balance quality and speed, in combination with the knowledge regarding the distance information. Thus, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the teachings of Nada et. al., Kono, and Yamada so that this time elapse limitation and distance information is included in the solution of the claimed invention.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JESSICA YIFANG LIN whose telephone number is (571)272-6435. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:00am-6:15pm, with optional day off.
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, Vu Le can be reached at 571-272-7332. 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.
/JESSICA YIFANG LIN/Examiner, Art Unit 2668
June 4, 2026
/VU LE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2668
Prosecution Insights