DETAILED ACTION
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 Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: a control unit configured to perform camera search processing and a control unit in claim 1; imaging unit and estimation unit in claim 9; imaging unit in claim 12 and estimation unit in claim 14.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
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 1-7 and 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, because the claim purports to invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, but fails to recite a combination of elements as required by that statutory provision and thus cannot rely on the specification to provide the structure, material or acts to support the claimed function. As such, the claim recites a function that has no limits and covers every conceivable means for achieving the stated function, while the specification discloses at most only those means known to the inventor. Accordingly, the disclosure is not commensurate with the scope of the claim.
Claims 1 only claims a “control unit” which is interpreted under 112f because it has a generic term “unit” modified by function “configured to perform camera search processing of searching for a camera suitable for authentication of a target among non-activated cameras which are yet to be activated, on the basis of a position and an angle of the target estimated from an image captured by an active camera which is an activated camera among multiple cameras, and activating the camera found by the search” and not modified by structure for carrying out the function. Therefore, the claim covers every conceivable means for carrying out the control unit function.
Claims 2-7 and 15-17 similarly are only directed to the control unit and therefore fails to provide additional elements.
Claims 2-7 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.
Claim 2 claims “wherein the control unit ends the camera search processing when the camera found by the search is the active camera, and activates the camera found by the search”. If the camera found by the search is the active camera (which implies that the camera is active) it is unclear how it can then be activated. Since it is not clear how an already active camera is being activated, the scope of the claim is indefinite.
Claims 3-7 are rejected due to their dependence on claim 2.
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 therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to nonstatutory subject matter. The claim does not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because claim 19 is directed to a program per se.
Claim 19 explicitly recites a “program for causing a computer to function as a control unit”
Thus, only a “program” per se is actually claimed with the “computer” being intended use.
Since a computer program per se “has no physical or tangible form, and thus does not fall within any statutory category” (MPEP 2106.03), claim # is nonstatutory under 35 U.S.C. §101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1, 2, 8, 12-14, 16, 18 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Ogino et al. (United States Patent Application Publication 2024/0029291), hereinafter referenced as Ogino.
Regarding claim 1, Ogino discloses an information processing device comprising a control unit (figure 8 exhibits authentication apparatus 10 as disclosed at paragraphs 84 and 35) configured to perform camera search processing of searching for a camera suitable for authentication of a target among non-activated cameras which are yet to be activated (figure 10 exhibits a process for selecting a currently inactive iris camera 22 of a capturing device 20 as disclosed at paragraph 76), on the basis of a position and an angle of the target estimated from an image captured by an active camera which is an activated camera among multiple cameras (figures 9 and 2 show that the activated iris camera is based on a position and an angle, where the angle is interpreted to be a function of the user’s eye height relative to the height of the camera such that the iris camera 22 which has an angle between the optical axis and eyes closest to 0 is selected), and activating the camera found by the search (figure 10 exhibits step 109 in which the selected iris camera is activated and an image is captured as disclosed at paragraph 77).
Regarding claim 2, Ogino discloses the information processing device according to claim 1, in addition, Ogino discloses wherein the control unit ends the camera search processing when the camera found by the search is the active camera, and activates the camera found by the search and repeats the camera search processing when the camera found by the search is the non-activated camera (while it is unclear how an active camera among non-activated cameras is found and then activated and why a search would be repeated if the found camera is a non-activated camera since the search of claim 1 is a search among non-activated cameras, see the above 112b rejection, the flow chart of figure 10 shows that once an iris camera is selected in step 108, the selected camera is then activated in step 109 and that if the system cannot decide on a non-activated camera to activate in step S204 then the search is repeated as disclosed at paragraph 93).
Regarding claim 8, Ogino discloses the information processing device according to claim 1, in addition, Ogino discloses comprising the multiple cameras (figure 8 shows that each capturing device includes 4 cameras as disclosed at paragraph 36).
Regarding claim 12, Ogino discloses the information processing device according to claim 8, in addition, Ogino discloses wherein the multiple cameras each comprise an imaging unit configured to capture an image of the target (paragraphs 37-39 teach that each camera includes an imaging unit such as a CMOS sensor).
Regarding claim 13, Ogino discloses the information processing device according to claim 12, in addition, Ogino discloses wherein the imaging unit of the non-activated camera is not activated, and the control unit activates the imaging unit of the camera found by the search (paragraph 42 teaches that iris cameras are activated when a person approaches the focal length of the camera, therefore it is clear that the iris cameras are inactive when the person is outside of the focal length of the iris cameras).
Regarding claim 14, Ogino discloses the information processing device according to claim 12, in addition, Ogino discloses an estimation unit configured to estimate a position and an angle of the target on the basis of the captured image (figure 8 exhibits time series data acquisition unit 13 which determines a position and angle of the eyes relative to each iris camera as disclosed at paragraphs 48 and 76).
Regarding claim 16, Ogino discloses the information processing device according to claim 1, in addition, Ogino discloses wherein the target is a face or a human body (paragraph 47 teaches that the target is a face).
Claim 18, a method, corresponds to and is analyzed the same as the device of claim 1.
Claim 19, a program, corresponds to and is analyzed the same as the device of claim 1 (paragraph 56 teaches that operations programs are stored in ROM 154).
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.
Claims 3-5 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ogino in view of Takahashi (United States Patent Application Publication 2020/0357126).
Regarding claim 3, Ogino discloses the information processing device according to claim 2, in addition, Ogino discloses wherein the control unit performs authentication processing of matching between a target in an image captured by the active camera and a target in a registered image (paragraph 78 teaches matching a current iris image to prior registered iris images). However, Ogino fails to disclose when the matching is unsuccessful, searching for a camera suitable for authentication of the target among the non-activated cameras, and activating the camera found by the search.
Takahashi is a similar or analogous system to the claimed invention as evidenced Takahashi teaches an imaging system wherein the motivation of maximizing authentication rates would have prompted a predictable variation of Ogino by applying Takahashi’s known principal of when authentication matching is not successful, searching for a new camera and activating the new camera (figure 11 exhibits a process where if the main camera fails authentication more than the sub camera, then the sub camera is activated as the main camera as disclosed at paragraph 95).
In view of the motivations such as maximizing authentication rates one of ordinary skill in the art would have implemented the claimed variation of the prior art system of Ogino.
Therefore, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 4, Ogino in view of Takahashi discloses the information processing device according to claim 3, in addition, Ogino discloses wherein the control unit ends the authentication processing when the number of the active cameras has reached a prescribed number, and activates the camera found by the search (figure 10 shows that the process ends and a camera is activated once the number of cameras is equal to 1) and repeats the authentication processing when the number of the active cameras has not reached the prescribed number (figure 10 shows that if a camera has not been found the process loops from step 101 to step 204).
Regarding claim 5, Ogino in view of Takahashi discloses the information processing device according to claim 3, in addition, Ogino discloses wherein at least one of the active cameras is an always-on camera which is always activated, and the control unit stops the active camera except for the always-on camera when the authentication processing ends (figure 2 shows that camera 21 is an always on camera which repeatedly performs capturing outside of active iris detection in steps S101-S103 and that iris cameras 22 are only active as needed for iris authentication in step S109 as disclosed at paragraphs 65 and 77).
Regarding claim 7, Ogino in view of Takahashi discloses the information processing device according to claim 3, in addition, Ogino discloses wherein at least one of the active cameras is an always-on camera (figure 2 shows that camera 21 is an always on camera which repeatedly performs capturing outside of active iris detection in steps S101-S103), and the control unit sets time up to which the active cameras except for the always-on camera stop (iris cameras 22 are only active as needed for iris authentication in step S109 as disclosed at paragraphs 65 and 77; by only capturing an image for iris detection and stopping after the detection process, the control unit is setting the time the active iris camera stops to be a time after an iris recognition image is captured).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ogino in view of Takahashi and further in view of Kim et al. (United States Patent Application Publication 2021/0331706), hereinafter referenced as Kim.
Regarding claim 6, Ogino in view of Takahashi discloses the information processing device according to claim 5, however, Ogino fails to disclose wherein the control unit sets the always-on camera according to the number of times the multiple cameras have been used or dates on and times at the multiple cameras have been used for the authentication processing.
Kim is a similar or analogous system to the claimed invention as evidenced Kim teaches an imaging system wherein the motivation of minimizing the delay time in detecting a subject would have prompted a predictable variation of Ogino by applying Kim’s known principal of selecting a default imaging area based on the frequency in which a target is identified (paragraph 20 teaches setting the default angle based on the direction in which a target is most frequently detected). When applying this known technique to Ogino in which there are multiple fixed cameras, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to select the camera in which a target is most-frequently detected as an always on camera.
In view of the motivations such as minimizing the delay time in detecting a subject one of ordinary skill in the art would have implemented the claimed variation of the prior art system of Ogino.
Therefore, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ogino in view of Takahata (Japanese Patent Application Publication 2015-041820-A). Note that all text citations refer to the attached machine translation.
Regarding claim 9, Ogino discloses the information processing device according to claim 8, in addition, Ogino discloses wherein the multiple cameras each comprise an imaging unit configured to capture an image of the target (paragraphs 37-39 teach that each camera includes an imaging unit such as a CMOS sensor). However, Ogino fails to disclose wherein each camera comprises an estimation unit configured to estimate a position and an angle of the target on the basis of the captured image.
Ogino teaches a system in which a central processor estimates a position and angle of the target based on captured images (figure 8 exhibits authentication apparatus 10 as disclosed at paragraphs 84 and 35). Takahata teaches that each camera includes an estimation unit configured to estimate a position and an angle of the target on the basis of the captured image (figure 1 exhibits a plurality of cameras 103, figure 2 exhibits wherein each camera includes their own target detection unit 208; paragraph 32 teaches that each camera, when active, detects the position and angle of the target)
Regarding claim 10, Ogino in view of Takahata discloses the information processing device according to claim 9, in addition, Takahata discloses wherein the imaging unit of the non-activated camera is activated while the estimation unit is not activated (paragraph 35 teaches that in response to a first camera detecting that another camera would better suited for capturing, a command is sent activating the capturing unit of the another camera for image capturing), and the control unit activates the estimation unit of the camera found by the search (paragraph 37 teaches that the target detection unit 208 of the another camera is activated to track the object).
Regarding claim 11, Ogino in view of Takahata discloses the information processing device according to claim 9, in addition, Takahata discloses wherein the imaging unit and the estimation unit of the non-activated camera are not activated (paragraph 34 teaches that the non-activated camera is in a power saving mode), and the control unit activates the imaging unit and the estimation unit of the camera found by the search (paragraph 35 teaches that in response to a first camera detecting that another camera would better suited for capturing, a command is sent activating the capturing unit of the another camera for image capturing and subsequent object tracking).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ogino in view of Nduka et al. (United States Patent Application Publication 2020/0065569), hereinafter referenced as Nduka.
Regarding claim 15, Ogino discloses the information processing device according to claim 1, however, Ogino fails to disclose wherein the multiple cameras are lensless cameras.
Ogino discloses standard cameras for image capturing (). Nduka discloses that lens cameras may be replaced with lensless cameras (paragraph 193). Because both Ogino in view of Nduka disclose cameras for capturing images of subjects, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the lensless cameras disclosed by Nduka for the cameras disclosed by Ogino to achieve the predictable result of performing iris identification.
Therefore, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ogino in view of Lewis et al. (United States Patent Application Publication 2018/0285802), hereinafter referenced as Lewis.
Regarding claim 17, Ogino discloses the information processing device according to claim 1, however, Ogino fails to disclose wherein the target is a code.
Ogino teaches performing tracking and identification based on iris images (). Lewis teaches that identification can be performed using image data to identify a code (paragraph 37). Because both Ogino and Lewis teach methods for identifying an individual, it would have been obvious to substitute the code identification taught by Lewis for the iris identification taught by Ogino to achieve the predictable result of identifying a subject.
Therefore, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Citation of Pertinent Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Kagaya et al. (United States Patent Application Publication 2023/0206688) discloses an imaging system.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JASON A FLOHRE whose telephone number is (571)270-7238. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:00-3:00.
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, Sinh Tran can be reached at 571-272-7564. 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.
JASON A. FLOHRE
Patent Examiner
Art Unit 2637
/JASON A FLOHRE/ Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2637