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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to the applicant's communication filed on 10/22/2024 In virtue of this communication, claims 1-12 filed on 10/22/2024 are currently pending in the instant application.
Claims 1-12 have been amended by a preliminary amendment filed on 10/22/2024.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information Disclosure statement (IDS) form PTO-1449, filed on 10/22/2024 and 11/25/2025 are in compliance with the provisions of CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosed therein was considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings received on 10/22/2024 have been reviewed by Examiner and they are acceptable.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1, 2 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claims 1 and 12, the limitation “register or updated feature information on a person who has been tracked and determine whether or not to register or update the feature information” is unclear, the claim limitation is inconsistent. The claim requires registration or updating, but the determination limitation might result in decision not to register or update. It is unclear whether registration or updating must always happen or only after an affirmative determination it happens. The steps can happen in different sequences. The claim wording is inconsistent and fails to define the scope with reasonable clarity.
Regarding claim 2, claim limitation “the information about the person being registered” is unclear whether is registered information about the person, information about a registered person, or information indicating that the person is registered. Further limitation “the extracted feature information on the person extracted” in unclear. Is the feature information extracted, the person, or both. Further the relationship between the failure and success of the operation needs express connectors. The claim 2 limitations relationship and connections are unclear.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefore, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to Abstract idea without significantly more. The independent claim1 recites “acquiring an image; tracking a person included in the image; and determining whether or not to register or update feature information on the person, based on the image including the person, and registering or updating the feature information on a person who has been tracked.”.
Step 1:
Regarding Step 1, the instant claims are directed to an apparatus, a method, and a non-transitory computer-readable medium, all among the statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A — Prong 1:
With regard to Step 2A — Prong 1, for example in method Claim 11, the limitations “acquiring an image; tracking a person included in the image; determining whether or not to register or update feature information on the person, based on the image including the person,” and “registering or updating the feature information on a person who has been tracked.”, as recited, is a method that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind/observation of a person inspecting an image/picture of an environment, which includes multiple people and based on their presence in the image, one may render an opinion as to the register or update information. That is, other than reciting “by a computer" nothing in the claim steps preclude the limitations from practically being performed in the mind or through observation of a person inspecting an image of an environment. The recited computer is simply a generic device. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonably interpretation covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of a generic components, then it falls within the "Mental processes" grouping of the abstract idea, which include concepts performed in the human mind, including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. In addition, the additional components recited in independent Claims 1 and 12, i.e., a memory, a processor, and a non-transitory computer-readable medium are simply generic computing components, accordingly, these independent claims include the above- described abstract idea.
Step 2A — Prong 2:
The 2019 PEG defines the phrase “integration into a practical application’ to require an additional element or a combination of additional elements in the claim
to apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception. In the instant case, the additional elements in the claims do not apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claims only recite additional elements using a computer, a memory, a processor, or a non-transitory readable medium, for instance, that includes performing the recited elements/functions/steps. These computing components in all are recited at high-level of generality and there are no other additional limitations recited in the claims. Accordingly, these additional steps/elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it is a field-of-use limitation that does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, independent Claims 1, 11, and 12 recite an abstract idea.
Step 2B:
Because the claims fail under Step 2A, the claims are further evaluated under Step 2B. The claims herein do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into practical application, the additional element of using a computer, a memory, a processor, or a non-transitory computer- readable medium to execute programming instructions to perform the step amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic apparatus component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic apparatus component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Further, the remaining dependent claims have been given the full two-part analysis including analyzing the additional limitations both individually and in combination. The dependent claims, when analyzed individually, and in combination, are also held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101. The additional recited limitations of the dependent claims fail to establish that the claims do not recite an abstract idea because the additional recited limitations of the dependent claims merely further narrow the abstract idea. The limitations of the dependent claims fail to integrate an abstract idea into a practical application because the dependent claims do not introduce additional elements; and performing the further narrowed abstract ideas of the dependent claims on the additional elements of independent claims, individually or in combination, does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract ideas and does not provide improvements to the functioning of computing systems or to another technology or technical field; therefore, the claims amount to merely using a computer, in its ordinary capacity, as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Similarly, the additional recited limitations of the dependent claims fail to establish that the claims provide an inventive concept because claims that merely use a computer, in its ordinary capacity, as a tool to perform the abstract idea cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Accordingly, claims 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
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)(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, 11, and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Sogo (JPH11175730).
As per claim 1, An information processing apparatus comprising: at least one memory that is configured to store instructions; and at least one processor that is configured to execute the instructions to: “acquire an image; track a person included in the image;” (Sogo, ¶[0006] discloses a human detection and tracking system for detecting the movement of a person passing through a passageway, comprising: an image acquisition means arranged at a plurality of detection positions in the passageway to acquire an image of each person; an image registration means for extracting the physical characteristics of a person from the image acquired by the image acquisition means and registering them in a database; and an identification means for determining the similarity between the physical characteristics acquired by the image acquisition means and the physical characteristics registered by the image registration means, and identifying whether or not the person is a registered user based on this similarity. ¶[0014-0015] disclose acquiring customer facial image data and it acquires individual facial features. Further see ¶[0032-0033].)
“and register or update feature information on a person who has been tracked,” (Sogo, ¶[0016] discloses These facial features are used as customer matching elements. The first data acquired by a customer entering through entrance/exit 14 is set as the customer's registered data. This is then used as a matching criterion to compare with data acquired by other imaging cameras 16.... If a match is found, the customer is detected, and this detection operation continues to track the customer. ¶[0023-0028] and ¶[0029] disclose automatically update the original registered data each time an image is acquired. Further ¶[0033].)
“and determine whether or not to register or update the feature information on the person, based on the image including the person.” (Sogo, ¶[0030] discloses automatically register images only when the images acquired by the imaging camera are deemed to contain parameters such as face size (number of pixels), face tilt, brightness, and density that are suitable for correcting the facial features of the same person for registration and updating, it is possible to update the registration data with higher accuracy.¶[0034] discloses The facial features are compared with all facial features registered in database 24. If the result is below the threshold, the facial image is either un-identifiable, or the person is not registered. In this case, the image of the feature data is confirmed to be clear, and the person is newly registered in database 24 as an unregistered individual.)
Claims 11 and 12 have been analyzed and are rejected for the reasons indicated in claim 1 above.
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(s) 2 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sogo (JPH11175730), further in view of Tsuji et al. (US 2016/0253554).
As per claim 2, The information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the at least one processor is configured to execute the instructions to: “match extracted feature information extracted from the person included in the image, with registered feature information, in a case where the person included in the image is not a person who is being tracked;”(Sogo, ¶[0023] discloses simultaneously captures two images of the first person A and the second person B when the persons A to C move in a specific direction, the database 24 is provided for each of the persons A and B. If it is determined that the customer is an unregistered customer with no registration data, the acquired image data is registered in the database 24. ¶[0032-0035] disclose capturing new person with initial camera extracting facial features amount from the positioned face image, the extracted facial features are compared and matched one by one to pre-registered facial features, and performing this comparison before the person is newly registered and being in tracking process. )
“associate the person included in the image with a person corresponding to the registered feature information, in response to a success in matching between the extracted feature information and the registered feature information;” (Sogo, ¶[0016] discloses These facial features are used as customer matching elements. The first data acquired by a customer entering through entrance/exit 14 is set as the customer's registered data. then used as a matching criterion to compare with data acquired by other imaging cameras16 If a match is found, the customer is detected, and this detection operation is continued to track the customer. ¶[0022] discloses confirming the person to be the same customer when the similarity threshold is level is met. ¶[0034] discloses If the result is above the threshold and the person is recognized as the same customer, the position of the imaging camera, the ID number of the identifier, the identification time, etc., are recorded, and the person's movements can be displayed or recorded as a movement path. )
“register the extracted feature information in association with the person included in the image, in response to a failure in the matching between the extracted feature information and the registered feature information;”(Sogo, ¶[0023] discloses compares the images of each person A and B from the database 24. If it is determined that they are unregistered customers for whom there is no registered data, the acquired image data is registered in the database 24.¶[0025] discloses If it is determined that person C is an unregistered customer and there is no registration data, the acquired image data is registered in the database 24. ¶[0034] discloses The facial features are compared with all facial features registered in database 24. If the result is below the threshold, the facial image is either unidentifiable, or the person is not registered. In this case, the image of the feature data is confirmed to be clear, and the person is newly registered in database 24 as an unregistered individual.)
“determine whether or not to update the registered feature information on the person, based on at least one of the image, the information about the person registered, and the extracted feature information on the person extracted;” (Sogo,¶[0029] discloses identifying whether or not to re-register the recently read facial feature value read for customer whose feature information is already stored in the database. ¶[0030] discloses determination is based on image information and parameters such as face size, tilt, brightness, density, and resolution. The registration is avoided when those image parameters are unsuitable.)
“update the registered feature information on the person by using the extracted feature information on the person extracted in response to a determination to update the registered feature information.” (Sogo, ¶[0029] discloses re-registration is allowed to automatically update the original registered data each time an image is acquired, thereby improving registration accuracy. During this re-registration process, when the imaging camera reads the customer's features stored in the database, it identifies whether or not to re-register the most recently read features. If it identifies that re-registration is appropriate, the system control unit 23 reregisters the facial features in the database 24. This re-registration process improves the accuracy and reliability of the registered data, thereby maintaining consistently accurate registered data. ¶[0030] discloses system automatically registers images only when the images acquired by the imaging camera are deemed to contain parameters such as face size (number of pixels), face tilt, brightness, and density that are suitable for correcting the facial features of the same person for registration and updating, it is possible to update the registration data with higher accuracy.)
However Sogo does not explicitly disclose the following which would have been obvious in view of Tsuji from similar field of endeavor “determine whether or not to extract the feature information on the person from the image, based on at least one of the image and information about the person registered, in a case where the person included in the image is a person who is being tracked”(Tsuji, ¶[0057] discloses person detection/tracking unit detects persons from sequential images, extracts, from each detected person, feature values (such as detection positions, face images, and movement vectors) for tracking the same person within images obtained by the same imaging device and performs person tracking by associating a person detected in the previous frame that was last captured, and a person extracted in the current frame that is a target for processing. ¶[0059] discloses The feature extraction determination unit determines whether a processing-target image is an image that is suitable for extracting features (S162). An image that is suitable for extracting features is an image in which a person is captured in a large manner, an image of a person in which there are a few hidden portions, or the like, and whether the current processing target image is more suitable than previously processed images. Processing advances to S163 if the feature extraction determination unit 34 determines that the current processing-target image is more suitable for feature extraction than images from which features have been extracted up until then (S162: yes), and processing advances to S165.)
“extract the feature information on the person from the image, in response to a determination to extract the feature information;” (Tsuji, ¶[0059] discloses if the feature extraction determination unit 34 determines that the current processing-target image is more suitable for feature extraction than images from which features have been extracted up until then (S162: yes), and processing advances to S165. ¶[0060] discloses In the case where the processing-target image is suitable for extracting features, the silhouette extraction unit 36 extracts and normalizes an image of a person and extracts a silhouette image. ¶[0061] discloses extracting color information as feature values of an image of a person, the color information extraction unit extracts overall color information corresponding to an extracted silhouette image portion. Further see¶[0062] and ¶[0064-0067].)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine Tsuji technique of image suitability determination for detection and tracking person into Sogo technique to provide the known and expected uses and benefits of Tsuji technique over human detection and tracking technique of Sogo. The proposed combination would have constituted a mere arrangement of old elements with each performing their known function, the combination yielding no more than one would expect from such an arrangement.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate Tsuji to Sogo in order to determine whether or not the detected people are the same person with a high degree of precision for feature extraction. (Refer to Tsuji paragraph [0034].)
As per claim 8, The information processing apparatus according to claim 2, Sogo as modified by Tsuji further discloses “wherein the at least one processor is configured to execute the instructions to:”(Sogo,¶[0015] discloses acquires the customer's face, and from this acquired facial image data, it acquires individual facial features such as the shape and size of each part of the face, including the eyes, nose, mouth, etc. ¶[0018] discloses face detection, face image extraction, and facial feature extraction.¶[0021] discloses These facial features are extracted by statistical methods such as principal component analysis to determine the difference from an average face, or by template matching from grayscale images of eyes, nose, mouth, etc.)
“ and match the biometric information with registered biometric information,”(Sogo, ¶[0018] discloses calculate the similarity by comparing it with the values stored in the database 24, and identify based on that similarity. ¶[0022] discloses The extracted facial features are compared and matched with features pre-registered in the registered feature memory 35 by the similarity determination unit 36 to determine the degree of similarity. If the similarity threshold level is met, customer is confirmed to be the same person.)
“ and associate the person included in the image with a person corresponding to the registered biometric information, in response to a success in matching.”(Sogo, ¶[0016] discloses These facial features are used as customer matching elements. The first data acquired by a customer entering through entrance/exit 14 is set as the customer's registered data. This is then used as a matching criterion to compare with data acquired by other imaging cameras 16.... If a match is found, the customer is detected, and this detection operation continues to track the customer. ¶[0024] discloses if the second imaging camera 16-2 and the third imaging camera 16-3 capture an image of the first person A, the registration data of person A is read from the database 24 and compared. If a match is found, it is determined that the person is the same customer and tracking is performed. Further see ¶[0026-0027]).
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sogo (JPH11175730), further in view of Tsuji et al. (US 2016/0253554), further in view of Kawanishi et al. (US 2012/0117069).
As per claim 3, The information processing apparatus according to claim 2, Sogo as modified by Tsuji discloses “wherein the at least one processor is configured to execute the instructions to continuous tracking of a same person through images” (Sogo, ¶[0016] and ¶[0024]) “determine whether or not to extract the feature information on a person in question who is being tracked” (Tsuji, ¶[0057] and ¶[0059] discloses tracking a person through sequential frames and determining whether the current tracked person image is suitable for feature extraction.)
however, Sogo as modified by Tsuji does not explicitly disclose the following which would have been obvious in view of Kawanishi from similar filed of endeavor “determine whether or not to extract the feature information based on a number of images”(Kawanishi, ¶[0277] discloses the instruction for registration of the one or more images are received, the feature extraction unit judges whether the number of the received images is greater than or equal to two. ¶[0278] discloses When judging that the number of the received images is not greater than or equal to two, the data processing device ends the processing)
“extract the feature information in response to the number of images satisfying a condition”, “feature information common to a number of images.” (Kawanishi, ¶[0279] discloses categorizing the received images by event. ¶[0282] discloses when judging that the number of images included in the selected event is greater than or equal to the predetermined value extracts, from the images included in the event, a reference feature amount that is calculated greater than or equal to a predetermined frequency. Further discloses extraction of color information or SIFT based reference feature and under certain condition of feature amount exists in more than half of all the images),
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine Kawanishi technique of judging whether or not to extract feature data into Sogo as modified by Tsuji technique to provide the known and expected uses and benefits of Kawanishi technique over human detection and tracking technique of Sogo as modified by Tsuji. The proposed combination would have constituted a mere arrangement of old elements with each performing their known function, the combination yielding no more than one would expect from such an arrangement. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate Kawanishi to Sogo as modified by Tsuji in order to determine whether or not the detected people are the same person with a high degree of precision for feature extraction. (Refer to Kawanishi paragraph [0034].)
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sogo (JPH11175730), further in view of Tsuji et al. (US 2016/0253554), further in view of Mostafa et al. (US 2019/0042866).
As per claim 5, The information processing apparatus according to claim 2, Although Sogo ¶[0029-0030] discloses registering facial features and evaluation of new feature for re-registration and Tsuji ¶[0059] discloses comparison of current tracked person with images previously used for feature extraction and finding suitable images, however, Sogo as modified by Tsuji does not explicitly disclose the following which would have been obvious in view of Kawanishi from similar filed of endeavor “wherein the information about the person registered includes an evaluation value obtained by evaluating the registered feature information on the person in question, and the at least one processor is configured to execute the instructions to perform at determination based on the evaluation value.” (Mostafa, ¶[0055] discloses enrolling facial static template and dynamic template, and ¶[0070-0073] disclose static stored facial templates having confidence scores and evaluation of temporary template through repeated successful matching with subsequently captured feature value. ¶[0073] discloses temporary templates are added to dynamic portion 224 as dynamic templates 226, when confidence score 332 for temporary template 312 is higher than a lowest confidence score of static templates 216 in static portion 222. Confidence score 334 may be equal to a lowest confidence score for static templates 216 in static portion 222 assessed during the same unlock attempts used to assess confidence score 332 for temporary template 312 (e.g., the confidence score for the template with the lowest number of successful unlock attempts during the same unlock attempts using temporary template 312). Confidence score 334 may be assessed using the same threshold used for confidence score 332 (e.g., threshold 326). [0074] discloses if, in 336, confidence score 332 is greater than confidence score 334, then temporary template 312 is added, in 338, as dynamic template 226 in dynamic portion 224. For example, if temporary template 312 has 45 successful unlock attempts out of 50 total unlock attempts while one static template 216 only has 40 successful unlock attempts out of the same 50 total unlock attempts, then temporary template 312 may be added to dynamic portion 224 as one of dynamic templates 226. If, in 336, confidence score 332 is less than confidence score 334, then temporary template 312 is ignored or deleted in 340. Temporary templates 312 may be added until a maximum number of allowed dynamic templates 226 are stored in dynamic portion 224.)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine Mostafa technique of updating facial feature template into Sogo as modified by Tsuji technique to provide the known and expected uses and benefits of Mostafa technique over human detection and tracking technique of Sogo as modified by Tsuji. The proposed combination would have constituted a mere arrangement of old elements with each performing their known function, the combination yielding no more than one would expect from such an arrangement. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate Mostafa to Sogo as modified by Tsuji in order to adapt changes while securely identify individuals. (Refer to Mostafa paragraph [0004].)
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sogo (JPH11175730), further in view of Tsuji et al. (US 2016/0253554), further in view of Irie et al. (US 2015/0363642).
As per claim 6, The information processing apparatus according to claim 2, Although Sogo as modified by Tsuji ¶[0057-0059] and ¶[0067] disclose person tracking. Conditional feature registration and matching of new and registered data and finding similarities based on threshold compassion, however Sogo as modified by Tsuji does not explicitly disclose the following which would have been obvious in view of Irie from similar field of endeavor “wherein the at least one processor is configured to execute the instructions to evaluate the extracted feature information based on a result of the matching between the extracted feature information and the registered feature information, and determines whether or not to update the registered feature information.” (Irie, ¶[0060] discloses the feature data registration unit 15 calculates a similarity Se between the new feature data and the already-registered data of another person for each class. The feature data registration unit 15 calculates a similarity Si between the new feature data and the already-registered data of the person in question.¶[0061] discloses the feature data registration unit 15 evaluates the similarities Se max and Si obtained in Steps S56 and S57 to determine whether the new feature data is closer to the already-registered data of the person in question (Se max≦Si) or the already-registered data of another person. When the new feature data is closer to the already-registered data of the person in question (YES in Step S58), the feature data registration unit 15 adds the new feature data to the same class as the already-registered data of the person in question. when the new feature data is closer to the already-registered data of another person (NO in Step S58), the feature data registration unit 15 sets the new class other than the existing person-in-question class, and registers the feature data in the new class. ¶[0063] discloses the addition to the existing class or the division of the class is determined based on a relative evaluation (comparison) for the similarity Si to the person in question and the similarity Se max to another person. Alternatively, the addition to the existing class or the division of the class may be determined as a simpler method only based on whether the similarity Se max to the already-registered data of another person is higher than a predetermined threshold Th.sub.1 (Se max>Th.sub.1).)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine Irie technique of object identification, feature extraction and registration into Sogo as modified by Tsuji technique to provide the known and expected uses and benefits of Irie technique over human detection and tracking technique of Sogo as modified by Tsuji. The proposed combination would have constituted a mere arrangement of old elements with each performing their known function, the combination yielding no more than one would expect from such an arrangement. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate Irie into Sogo as modified by Tsuji in order to provide accurate face identification and feature extraction. (Refer to Irie paragraph [0004].)
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sogo (JPH11175730), further in view of Tsuji et al. (US 2016/0253554), further in view of Hiroo et al. (JP2019205002A).
As per claim 7, The information processing apparatus according to claim 2, “wherein the at least one processor is configured to execute the instructions to evaluate the extracted feature information and determine whether or not to update the registered feature information”(Sogo, ¶[0029-0030] discloses identifying whether or not to re-register the recently read facial feature value read for customer whose feature information is already stored in the database. determination is based on image information and parameters such as face size, tilt, brightness, density, and resolution. The registration is avoided when those image parameters are unsuitable.)
Further Tsuji disclose “tracking a person in different frames with portion being hidden” Tsuji, ¶[0057] disclose tracking same person in different frame images and ¶[0059] discloses storing the person position and range, and evaluating whether a portion of a person is hidden, then suitability of feature extraction in the image.
However, Sogo as modified by Tsuji does not explicitly disclose the following which would have been obvious in view of Hiroo from similar field of endeavor “based on at least one of: information indicating an overlap between first predetermined areas of the person in different images; and information indicating an overlap between second predetermined areas of different persons in the same image.” (Hiroo, ¶[0020], discloses the tracking unit 137 determines that the images of people detected in consecutive frames are of the same person if the overlapping area is greater than or equal to a predetermined value. ¶[0021] discloses the tracking unit 137 determines that if the overlapping area of person images detected in consecutive frames is smaller than a predetermined value, the person image is of a different person.)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine Hiroo technique of monitoring and tracking a person into Sogo as modified by Tsuji technique to provide the known and expected uses and benefits of Hiroo technique over human detection and tracking technique of Sogo as modified by Tsuji. The proposed combination would have constituted a mere arrangement of old elements with each performing their known function, the combination yielding no more than one would expect from such an arrangement. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate Hiroo into Sogo as modified by Tsuji in order to accurately tracking person in consecutive frames. (Refer to Hiroo paragraph [0004].)
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sogo (JPH11175730), further in view of Tsuji et al. (US 2016/0253554), further in view of Hamami et al. (US 2022/0139109 ).
As per claim 9, The information processing apparatus according to claim 2, Sogo as modified by Tsuji does not explicitly disclose the following which would have been obvious in view of Hamami form similar filed of endeavor “wherein the at least one processor is configured to execute the instructions to: determine to which of a plurality of predetermined attributes the person included in the image corresponds,” (Hamami ¶[0055] discloses captures one or more images of a known user of computing device 210 and generates image data indicative of each of the images. Enrollment module 224 of FRM 222 may receive the image data from image capture device 214 and analyze the image data to assign each of images 130 to one or more pose buckets. ¶[0056] discloses Enrollment module determine which of pose buckets 132 is associated with an image based on characteristics or landmarks of the face of the known user included in the image. For instance, enrollment module 224 may detect landmarks in the images of the unknown user's face, such as the user's eyes, nose, and mouth, and may determine the yaw and pitch angle of the face based on the landmarks. ¶[0058])
“and determine whether or not feature information corresponding to an attribute in question is registered,”(Hamami, ¶[0058] discloses determine that pose bucket 132AC already includes a range of yaw angles from −5 degrees to 5 degrees and a range of pitch angles from 15 degrees to 25 degrees (e.g., pose bucket 132AC is centered on 0 degrees yaw and 20 degrees pitch) or template for the person. ¶[0063] discloses the data indicative of images 130 may include the images themselves or image templates for each respective image. The image templates may include a vector with a plurality of element values. each element value of the vector corresponds to a feature of the user's face .)
“register the feature information corresponding to the attribute in question, in response to a determination that the feature information corresponding to the attribute in question is not registered;”(Hamami, ¶[0058] discloses enrollment module 224 may determine that the yaw and pitch angles of the user's face in image 130B are within the range of pitch and yaw angles for pose bucket 132AC. Enrollment module 224 may determine whether pose bucket 132AC includes one of images 130 and may include image 130B in pose bucket 132AC in response to determining that pose bucket 132AC does not already include an image.¶[0063] discloses associating respective image template with template identifier with the known user account.¶[0068] discloses store the data indicative of images 130 (e.g., the images themselves or the image templates) to enrolled images data store.)
“and determine whether or not to update the registered feature information on the person, in response to a determination that the feature information corresponding to the attribute in question is registered.” (Hamami, ¶[0060] disclose enrollment module 224 determines that pose bucket 132BC already includes image 130A and determines whether to replace image 130A with image 130B in pose bucket 132BC. enrollment module 224 may determine whether to replace image 130A with image 130B in pose bucket 132BC based on a distance between the center of pose bucket 132BC and the respective yaw and pitch angles for images 130A, 130B. For example, enrollment module 224 may determine the yaw and pitch angles for image 130A; the yaw and pitch angles for image 130B, and the yaw and pitch angles for the center of pose bucket 132BC. enrollment module 224 may determine that image 130B is closer to the center of pose bucket 132BC than image 130A, and may replace image 130A with image 130B within pose bucket 132BC. ¶[0061] discloses determine whether to include image 130A or image 130B within pose bucket 132BC based on the order of receiving the image data for images 130A, 130B.)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine Hamami technique of user authentication and facial recognition into Sogo as modified by Tsuji technique to provide the known and expected uses and benefits of Hamami technique over human detection and tracking technique of Sogo as modified by Tsuji. The proposed combination would have constituted a mere arrangement of old elements with each performing their known function, the combination yielding no more than one would expect from such an arrangement. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate Hamami into Sogo as modified by Tsuji to accurately authenticate an unknown user by previously authenticated user images. (Refer to Hamami paragraph [0001].)
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sogo (JPH11175730), further in view of Tsuji et al. (US 2016/0253554), further in view of Murakami et al. (US 2014/0247374).
As per claim 10, The information processing apparatus according to claim 1, Sogo as modified by Tsuji does not explicitly disclose the following which would have been obvious in view of Murakami form similar filed of endeavor “wherein the at least one processor is configured to execute the instructions to display the image in which information indicating a tracking result is superimposed on a person in question included in the image.” (Murakami, ¶[0150] discloses The person image 200 and a dog image 500 are depicted in these display images 120. Further, a body tracking frame 600 is superimposed onto a body region of the dog image 500, the face frame 320 is superimposed onto the normal face region 230. That is, the face detection section 32 and the face collation section 33 continuously perform a face detection process and a face collation process by the target tracking section 34 tracking the dog image 500, which is the tracking target. Further see ¶[0153],[0156]. ¶[0157] discloses the tracking body frame 420 is superimposed onto the body region of the person image 200.)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine Murakami technique of face tracking into Sogo as modified by Tsuji technique to provide the known and expected uses and benefits of Murakami technique over human detection and tracking technique of Sogo as modified by Tsuji. The proposed combination would have constituted a mere arrangement of old elements with each performing their known function, the combination yielding no more than one would expect from such an arrangement.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate Murakami into Sogo as modified by Tsuji to perform reliable tracking of the person. (Refer to Murakami paragraph [0003].)
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 4 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims and on the pending conditions of the rejected and objected matter set forth in this action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the prior art of record, alone or in combination, fails to teach or suggest the limitations set forth by claim 4.
Contact
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHAGHAYEGH AZIMA whose telephone number is (571)272-1459. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9:30-6:30.
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, Vincent Rudolph can be reached at (571)272-8243. 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.
/SHAGHAYEGH AZIMA/Examiner, Art Unit 2671
Prosecution Insights