CTFR 18/863,337 CTFR 86258 DETAILED ACTION 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. Response to Arguments 07-37 AIA Applicant's arguments filed 4/8/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Regarding claim 1, Applicant argues that Ogino does not “execute a search for a non-activated camera using an image captured by another active camera” (see page 11 of Remarks). However, the Examiner respectfully disagrees with this conclusion. Figure 10 of Ogino shows a process in which a wide view camera which captures images beginning in step S101 is used to search for an iris camera (which at the time of steps S101-S108 is not capturing an image and therefore interpreted as being inactive) to then activate by selecting the iris camera and calculating image capturing settings for the selected camera to then capture an image in step S109. In view of the teachings of Ogino, the Examiner is note persuaded that Ogino fails to disclose a system which is configured to “execute a search for a non-activated camera using an image captured by another active camera” as alleged by the Applicant. Therefore, claim 1 stands rejected as further detailed below. Applicant argues that claims 18 and 19 are allowable for reasons similar to those of claim 1 (see pages 12 and 13 of Remarks). In view of claim 1 standing rejected for the reasons discussed above, claims 18 and 19 also stand rejected as further detailed below. Applicant argues that the dependent claims are allowable due to their dependence on claim 1 (see pages 13-18 of Remarks). In view of claim 1 standing rejected for the reasons discussed above, the dependent claims also stand rejected as further detailed below . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 07-30-02 AIA 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. 07-34-01 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 already activated”. If the camera found by the search is the active camera (which implies that the camera is active) it is unclear how this camera which is already activated is found when searching “among one or more non-activated cameras which are yet to be activated” as claimed in claim 1. Since it is not clear how an already active camera is found when searching among one or more non-activated cameras which are yet to be activated, the scope of the claim is indefinite. Claims 3-7 are rejected due to their dependence on claim 2. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 07-07-aia AIA 07-07 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 – 07-12-aia AIA (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. 07-15-03-aia AIA Claim s 1, 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 circuitry (figure 8 exhibits authentication apparatus 10 as disclosed at paragraphs 84 and 35) configured to perform camera search processing of searching for at least one camera suitable for authentication of a target among one or more 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; which at the time of steps S101-S108 is not capturing an image and therefore interpreted as being inactive), based on a position and an angle of the target estimated from an image captured by an active camera which is a previously 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 each non-activated 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 8, Ogino discloses the information processing device according to claim 1, in addition, Ogino discloses 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 imager 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 imager of each non-activated camera is not activated, and wherein the circuitry activates the imager of each 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 wherein the circuitry is further configured to estimate the position and the angle of the target based on 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 non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, 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 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 2 and 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 provided with the prior Office Action . Regarding claim 2, Ogino discloses the information processing device according to claim 1, in addition, Ogino discloses wherein the circuitry activates each non-activated camera found by the search and repeats the camera search processing when the at least one camera found by the search processing is the not already activated (while it is unclear how an active camera among non-activated cameras is found as discussed in the 112b rejection above 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). However, Ogino fails to disclose wherein the circuitry is configured to end the camera search processing when the at least one camera found by the search is already activated. Takahata is a similar or analogous system to the claimed invention as evidenced Takahata teaches an imaging system wherein the motivation of conserving resources by not activating cameras which will not capture an image of a target would have prompted a predictable variation of Ogino by applying Takahata’s known principal of ending the camera search processing when the at least one camera found by the search is already activated (figure 6 shows a process wherein each non-activated camera is checked against the position information, if the cameras do not match the position information in step S26, then the process ends with only the active cameras as disclosed at paragraph 51). In view of the motivations such as conserving resources by not activating cameras which will not capture an image of a target 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 9, Ogino discloses the information processing device according to claim 8, in addition, Ogino discloses wherein the multiple cameras each comprise an imager 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 circuitry configured to estimate the position and the angle of the target based on 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 circuitry 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). Because both Ogino and Takahata teach systems for estimating a position and angle of the target based on captured images, 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 camera-level estimation circuitry taught by Takahata for the system-level estimation circuitry taught by Ogino to achieve the predictable result of estimating a position and angle of a target. 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 10, Ogino in view of Takahata discloses the information processing device according to claim 9, in addition, Takahata discloses wherein the imager of each non-activated camera is activated while the circuitry of each non-activated camera 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 wherein the circuitry activates the circuitry of each non-activated 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 imager and the circuitry of each non-activated camera are not activated (paragraph 34 teaches that the non-activated camera is in a power saving mode), and wherein the circuitry activates the imager and the circuitry of each non-activated camera found by the camera search processing (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) . 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 3-5 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ogino in view of Takahata and further in view of Takahashi (United States Patent Application Publication 2020/0357126) . Regarding claim 3, Ogino in view of Takahata discloses the information processing device according to claim 2, in addition, Ogino discloses wherein the circuitry is further configured to perform 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 one or more non-activated cameras. 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 7 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 Takahata and further in view of Takahashi discloses the information processing device according to claim 3, in addition, Ogino discloses wherein the circuitry is configured to end the authentication processing when a number of active cameras has reached a prescribed number, and wherein the circuitry activates each non-activated 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 Takahata and further in view of Takahashi discloses the information processing device according to claim 3, in addition, Ogino discloses wherein at least one active camera is an always-on camera which is always activated, and wherein the circuitry is configured to stop stops each 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 Takahata and further 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 wherein the circuitry 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) . 07-21-aia AIA Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ogino in view of Takahata 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 Takahata and further in view of Takahashi discloses the information processing device according to claim 5, however, Ogino fails to disclose wherein the circuitry 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 . 07-21-aia AIA 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 . 07-21-aia AIA 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. Conclusion 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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing date of this final action. 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 8:00-2:00. 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 Application/Control Number: 18/863,337 Page 2 Art Unit: 2637 Application/Control Number: 18/863,337 Page 3 Art Unit: 2637 Application/Control Number: 18/863,337 Page 4 Art Unit: 2637 Application/Control Number: 18/863,337 Page 5 Art Unit: 2637 Application/Control Number: 18/863,337 Page 6 Art Unit: 2637 Application/Control Number: 18/863,337 Page 7 Art Unit: 2637 Application/Control Number: 18/863,337 Page 8 Art Unit: 2637 Application/Control Number: 18/863,337 Page 9 Art Unit: 2637 Application/Control Number: 18/863,337 Page 10 Art Unit: 2637 Application/Control Number: 18/863,337 Page 11 Art Unit: 2637 Application/Control Number: 18/863,337 Page 12 Art Unit: 2637 Application/Control Number: 18/863,337 Page 13 Art Unit: 2637
Prosecution Insights