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 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 6 and 14 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.
Claims 6 and 14 each recite the limitation “the feature extraction means”, for which there is insufficient antecedent basis in the claims. Appropriate clarification and correction are required.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 4 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
The features recited in Claims 4 and 12 are not further limiting of the features recited in claims 3 and 11 from which they respectively depend. Claims 3 and 11 each already recite the limitation “determine whether or not the image of the face of the subject and the image of the hand of the subject have been taken with image quality with which a feature having quality suitable for biometric authentication can be extracted.” The only difference in language between claims 4 and 12 and claims 3 and 11 is the recitation of “the image of the face of the subject and the image of the hand of the subject both detected from one image”, which is implied in the language of base claims 1 and 9, as both the image of the face of the subject and the image of the hand of the subject are recited as being determined from the same image obtained by photographing the subject. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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.
Claims 1-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Independent Claims 1, 9 and 17 recite a system, method, and computer-readable medium for detecting a face and a hand in an image.
The limitations of “detect a face of a subject…set, in a case where the face of the subject has been detected, a hand detection area…detect a hand present in the hand detection area…”, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “at least one memory…and at least one processor” in claim 1, “a computer” in claim 9, and “A non-transitory computer readable medium storing a program for causing a computer to perform…” in claim 17, nothing in the claim elements precludes the steps from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “processor” and “computer” language, “detect” and “set” in the context of this claim encompasses a user such as a security official manually locating a face and a hand of a subject while viewing an image of the subject. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, claims 1, 9 and 17 only recite the additional elements of using one or more processors or a computer to perform the detecting and setting steps. The processors, computer, and computer readable medium are each recited at a high level of generality, such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using one or more processors or a computer to perform the detecting and setting steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Furthermore, the claims recite the additional element of outputting information as a result of the detections, which amounts to no more than insignificant extra-solution activity. Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, independent claims 1, 9 and 17 are not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 2-8 and 10-16 are additionally rejected under 35 USC 101 because they recite additional elements which amount to further mental processes and mere data gathering, pre-processing and outputting steps, which are all considered insignificant extra-solution activities.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2, 5, 7-10, 13 and 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by KR 20150065529A1 (hereinafter “Lee”; citations correspond to English machine translation).
Regarding claim 1, Lee discloses a detection system (Lee, Fig. 1, p.3, l.30-38; “biometric authentication apparatus”) comprising:
at least one memory storing instructions (Lee, p.10, l.13-16; “These computer program instructions may also be stored in a computer usable or computer readable memory”), and
at least one processor configured to execute the instructions to (Lee, p.10, l.10-16; “These computer program instructions may be loaded into a 10 processor of a general purpose computer, special purpose computer, or other programmable data processing apparatus so that the instructions, which are executed via a processor of a computer”):
detect a face of a subject from an image obtained by photographing the subject (Lee, p.4, l.23-30; “The image analyzing unit 151 may analyze the image obtained by the image obtaining unit 110 to detect the position of one eye, which is one of the face elements, and then estimate the face area based on the positions of the two eyes”);
set, in a case where the face of the subject has been detected, a hand detection area around an area including the face of the subject; detect a hand present in the hand detection area from the image obtained by photographing the subject (Lee, p.4, l.30-40; “The hand image analyzing unit 152 can detect a hand region within a lump after detecting a lump in which relatively bright pixels are gathered from the rest of the regions excluding the face region estimated by the facial image analyzing unit 151”); and
output information about the face of the subject and information about the hand of the subject (Lee, p.6, l.5-10; “The output unit 170 outputs the processing result of the biometric authentication by the biometric authentication unit 157”).
Regarding claim 2, claim 1 is incorporated, and Lee further discloses wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions to:
output an image of the face of the subject as information about the face of the subject (Lee, Fig. 3, p.6, l.5-10, p.7, l.10 –p.8, l.5; “the face region is estimated based on the positions of both eyes. For example, the face region can be estimated to be a rectangular shape 305”). , and
output an image of the hand of the subject as information about the hand of the subject (Lee, Fig. 3, p.6, l.5-10, p.7, l.25- p.8, l.35; “The hand image analyzing unit 152 analyzes the image obtained by the image acquiring unit 110 using a known ASM (Active Shape Model) algorithm or the like to calculate the hand image of the palm 307 and the finger 309).”).
Regarding claim 5, claim 1 is incorporated, and Lee further discloses the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions to:
extract a feature from each of the image of the face of the subject and the image of the hand thereof (Lee, p.4, l.22-40; “The facial image analyzing unit 151 analyzes the image obtained by the image obtaining unit 110, and extracts information to be used for face authentication from the detected facial region… The hand image analyzing unit 152 grasps the hand region by analyzing the image obtained by the image obtaining unit 110 and extracts information to be used for hand authentication from the hand region.”);
output a feature extracted from the image of the face of the subject as information about the face of the subject; and output a feature extracted from the image of the hand of the subject as information about the hand of the subject (Lee, p.5, l.5 – p.6, l.10; “The output unit 170 outputs the processing result of the biometric authentication by the biometric authentication unit 157 and the photographing posture information by the guide information generating unit 159 to the outside through an image or voice to allow the user to recognize the image”).
Regarding claim 7, claim 1 is incorporated, and Lee further discloses further comprising light emitting unit configured to irradiate at least the hand detection area with light including a predetermined pattern image (Lee, p.4, l.1-5; “the infrared ray generator 130 may be provided integrally with the biometric authentication device 100 or separately from the biometric authentication device 100. The infrared ray generator 130 serves as a light source that generates infrared light so that the image acquisition unit 110 of the biometric authentication apparatus 100 can capture images for biometric authentication”).
Regarding claim 8, claim 1 is incorporated, and Lee further discloses further comprising display apparatus configured to display a reference posture image for urging the subject to take a predetermined posture in a case where the hand detection area is set (Lee, p.5, l.28-40; “The guide information generating unit 159 generates the photographing posture information for guiding the photographing posture of the subject according to the position of the face area and the hand area or the degree of mutual overlap between the images captured by the image analyzing unit 151”).
Claim 9 recites a method having features which correspond to the elements recited in system claim 1, the rejection of which is applicable here.
Claim 10 recites a method having features which correspond to the elements recited in system claim 2, the rejection of which is applicable here.
Claim 13 recites a method having features which correspond to the elements recited in system claim 5, the rejection of which is applicable here.
Claim 15 recites a method having features which correspond to the elements recited in system claim 7, the rejection of which is applicable here.
Claim 16 recites a method having features which correspond to the elements recited in system claim 8, the rejection of which is applicable here.
Claim 17 recites a non-transitory computer readable medium storing a program having features which correspond to the elements recited in system claim 1, the rejection of which is applicable here, and Lee further discloses a non-transitory computer readable medium storing a program (Lee, p.10, l.13-16; “These computer program instructions may also be stored in a computer usable or computer readable memory”).
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.
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.
Claims 3-4, 6, 11-12 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee, as applied to claims 1 and 9 above, in view of JP2021131737A (hereinafter “Nakazaki”; applicant-submitted prior art, citations correspond to English machine translation).
Regarding claim 3, claim 2 is incorporated, and Lee does not expressly teach the limitations as further claimed, but, in an analogous field of endeavor, Nakazaki does as follows.
Nakazaki teaches wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions to:
determine whether or not the image of the face of the subject and the image of the hand of the subject have been taken with image quality with which a feature having quality suitable for biometric authentication can be extracted (Nakazaki, ¶0052-0053; “the biometric authentication device 100 determines whether the shooting environment is appropriate or not based on the shooting environment information”); and
in a case where the image of the face of the subject and the image of the hand of the subject have been taken with image quality with which a feature having quality suitable for biometric authentication can be extracted, output the image of the face of the subject as information about the face of the subject and output the image of the hand of the subject as information about the hand of the subject (Nakazaki, ¶0053-0054; “if the shooting environment is determined to be appropriate (step S507: Yes), the biometric authentication device 100 performs detection of the biological region by the detection unit 412 (step S508)”).
Nakazaki is considered analogous art because it pertains to biometric authentication based on an image including a face and hand of a person. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system taught by Lee to include determining if the shooting environment, and therefore the image acquired, is appropriate for authentication purposes prior to authentication, as taught by Nakazaki, in order to perform more accurate biometric authentication of the person (Nakazaki, ¶0008-0009).
Regarding claim 4, claim 3 is incorporated, and Nakazaki in the combination further teaches wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions to determine whether or not the image of the face of the subject and the image of the hand of the subject both detected from one image have been taken with image quality with which a feature having quality suitable for biometric authentication can be extracted (Nakazaki, ¶0052-0054; “the biometric authentication device 100 determines whether the shooting environment is appropriate or not based on the shooting environment information”).
Regarding claim 6, claim 5 is incorporated, and Lee does not expressly teach the limitations as further claimed, but, in an analogous field of endeavor, Nakazaki does as follows.
Nakazaki teaches the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions to:
determine whether or not a feature extracted by the feature extraction means has quality suitable for biometric authentication (Nakazaki, ¶0040, 0060-0061; “Next, the biometric authentication device 100 determines whether the extracted biometric feature data is appropriate or not using the determination unit 411”), and
in a case where the feature has quality suitable for biometric authentication, output the feature as information about the face or the hand of the subject (Nakazaki, ¶0082-0083; “After determining the appropriateness of the biometric feature data (step S513: Yes), the biometric authentication device 100 uses the authentication unit 406 to calculate the similarity between the biometric feature data extracted in step S512 and each of the biometric feature data already registered in the biometric feature data registration process”).
Nakazaki is considered analogous art because it pertains to biometric authentication based on an image including a face and hand of a person. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system taught by Lee to include determining the appropriateness of the biometric feature data for authentication purposes prior to authentication, as taught by Nakazaki, in order to perform more accurate biometric authentication of the person (Nakazaki, ¶0008-0009).
Claim 11 recites a method having features which correspond to the elements recited in system claim 3, the rejection of which is applicable here.
Claim 12 recites a method having features which correspond to the elements recited in system claim 4, the rejection of which is applicable here.
Claim 14 recites a method having features which correspond to the elements recited in system claim 6, the rejection of which is applicable here.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The additionally cited references pertain generally to detecting faces and hands in images, and/or biometric authentication using face and hand image data.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SAMAH A BEG whose telephone number is (571)270-7912. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9 AM - 5 PM.
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, HENOK SHIFERAW can be reached at 571-272-4637. 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.
/SAMAH A BEG/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2676
Prosecution Insights