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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) filed on 12/13/2024 and 11/30/2025 were considered and placed on the file of record by the examiner.
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.
The USPTO “Interim Guidelines for Examination of Patent Applications for Patent Subject Matter Eligibility” (Official Gazette notice of 23 February 2010), reads as follows (see also MPEP 2111.01):
CLAIMS MUST BE GIVEN THEIR BROADEST REASONABLE INTERPRETATION
During patent examination, the pending claims must be “given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification.” >The Federal Circuit’s en banc decision in Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 75 USPQ2d 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2005) expressly recognized that the USPTO employs the “broadest reasonable interpretation” standard:
The Patent and Trademark Office (“PTO”) determines the scope of claims in patent applications not solely on the basis of the claim language, but upon giving claims their broadest reasonable construction “in light of the specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art.” In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech. Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364[, 70 USPQ2d 1827] (Fed. Cir. 2004). Indeed, the rules of the PTO require that application claims must “conform to the invention as set forth in the remainder of the specification and the terms and phrases used in the claims must find clear support or antecedent basis in the description so that the meaning of the terms in the claims may be ascertainable by reference to the description.” 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1). 415 F.3d at 1316, 75 USPQ2d at 1329. See also< In re Hyatt, 211 F.3d 1367, 1372, 54 USPQ2d 1664, 1667 (Fed. Cir. 2000). Applicant always has the opportunity to amend the claims during prosecution, and broad interpretation by the examiner reduces the possibility that the claim, once issued, will be interpreted more broadly than is justified. In re Prater, 415 F.2d 1393, 1404-05, 162 USPQ 541, 550-51 (CCPA 1969) (Claim 9 was directed to a process of analyzing data generated by mass spectrographic analysis of a gas. The process comprised selecting the data to be analyzed by subjecting the data to a mathematical manipulation. The examiner made rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101 and 102. In the 35 U.S.C. 102 rejection, the examiner explained that the claim was anticipated by a mental process augmented by pencil and paper markings. The court agreed that the claim was not limited to using a machine to carry out the process since the claim did not explicitly set forth the machine. The court explained that “reading a claim in light of the specification, to thereby interpret limitations explicitly recited in the claim, is a quite different thing from reading limitations of the specification into a claim,’ to thereby narrow the scope of the claim by implicitly adding disclosed limitations which have no express basis in the claim.” The court found that applicant was advocating the latter, i.e., the impermissible importation of subject matter from the specification into the claim.). See also In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054-55, 44 USPQ2d 1023, 1027-28 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (The court held that the PTO is not required, in the course of prosecution, to interpret claims in applications in the same manner as a court would interpret claims in an infringement suit. Rather, the “PTO applies to verbiage of the proposed claims the broadest reasonable meaning of the words in their ordinary usage as they would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art, taking into account whatever enlightenment by way of definitions or otherwise that may be afforded by the written description contained in applicant’s specification.”).
The broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims must also be consistent with the interpretation that those skilled in the art would reach. In re Cortright, 165 F.3d 1353, 1359, 49 USPQ2d 1464, 1468 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (The Board’s construction of the claim limitation “restore hair growth” as requiring the hair to be returned to its original state was held to be an incorrect interpretation of the limitation. The court held that, consistent with applicant’s disclosure and the disclosure of three patents from analogous arts using the same phrase to require only some increase in hair growth, one of ordinary skill would construe “restore hair growth” to mean that the claimed method increases the amount of hair grown on the scalp, but does not necessarily produce a full head of hair.).
The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim drawn to a computer-readable storage medium typically covers both forms of non-transitory tangible media and transitory propagating signals per se in view of the ordinary and customary meaning of computer readable media. See the OG Notice of 23 February 2010 entitled "Subject Matter Eligibility of Computer Readable Media", 1351 OG 212.
When the broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim covers a signal per se, the claim must be rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as covering non-statutory subject matter. See In re Nuijten, 500 F.3d 1346, 1356-57 (Fed. Cir. 2007). Since none of the clearly and unambiguously exclude propagating signals from the full scope of the claimed invention. Furthermore, because signals can be considered to "store" the values of the information being transmitted, at least during the transient period of the transmission, the term "storage" also fails to clearly and unambiguously exclude such signals from the claimed invention.
Claims 19-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter as follows.
Claims 19-21 define a computer-readable storage medium embodying functional descriptive material (i.e., a computer program or computer executable code). However, the claim does not define a “non-transitory computer-readable medium or non-transitory computer-readable memory” and is thus non-statutory for that reason (i.e., “When functional descriptive material is recorded on some non-transitory computer-readable medium it becomes structurally and functionally interrelated to the medium and will be statutory in most cases since use of technology permits the function of the descriptive material to be realized” – Guidelines Annex IV). The scope of the presently claimed invention encompasses products that are not necessarily non-transitory computer readable, and thus NOT able to impart any functionality of the recited program.
The examiner suggests amending the claims to embody “non-transitory computer-readable storage medium” or equivalent; assuming the specification does NOT define the computer readable medium as a “signal”, “carrier wave”, or “transmission medium” which are deemed non-statutory (refer to “note” below). Any amendment to the claim should be commensurate with its corresponding disclosure.
Note:
“A transitory, propagating signal … is not a “process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter” Those four categories define the explicit scope and reach of subject matter patentable under 35 U.S.C. § 101; thus, such a signal cannot be patentable subject matter.” (In re Nuijten, 84 USPQ2d 1495 (Fed. Cir. 2007). Should the full scope of the claim as properly read in light of the disclosure encompass non-statutory subject matter such as a “signal”, the claim as a whole would be non-statutory. Should the applicant’s specification define or exemplify the computer readable medium or memory (or whatever language applicant chooses to recite a computer readable medium equivalent) as statutory tangible products such as a hard drive, ROM, RAM, etc., as well as a non-statutory entity such as a “signal”, “carrier wave”, or “transmission medium”, the examiner suggests amending the claim to include the disclosed tangible non-transitory computer readable storage media, while at the same time excluding the intangible transitory media such as signals, carrier waves, etc.
Merely reciting functional descriptive material as residing on a “tangible” or other medium is not sufficient. If the scope of the claimed medium covers media other than “non-transitory computer readable” media, the claim remains non-statutory. The full scope of the claimed media (regardless of what words applicant chooses) should not fall outside that of a non-transitory computer readable medium.
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, 9, 10, 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Niranjayan (US 10,515,337).
Regarding claim 1, Niranjayan teaches a method of operating a seamless physical access control (PAC) system, the method comprising: receiving, by a verification device of the PAC system, credential information from a credential device (see col. 3 lines 38-62, Niranjayan discusses a person carrying a mobile device with a device identifier);
receiving inertial measurement unit (IMU) information from the credential device (see col. 3 lines 38-62, col. 11 lines 5-15, Niranjayan discusses mobile device including an inertial measurement unit (IMU) that has three accelerometers to detect acceleration along mutually orthogonal axes, and three gyroscopes to detect rotation about those axes);
receiving video data from another device different from the credential device, the video data including images of one or more persons (see col. 3 lines 1-17, Niranjayan discusses cameras capturing video data of persons); and
correlating, by the verification device, movement of the one or more persons detected in the video data with the received IMU information to identify a person in the video data as a holder in possession of the credential device (see figure 1, figure 2, col. 10 lines 24-67, col. 13 line 49 - col. 14 line 25, Niranjayan discusses comparing the visual tracking data with the IMU motion analysis data to identify a person).
Regarding claim 9, Niranjayan teaches including presenting identification of the identified holder of the credential device on a display of a user interface of the PAC system (see col. 31 lines 1-12, Niranjayan discusses a display on a user interface).
Claim 10 is rejected as applied to claim 1 as pertaining to a corresponding verification device comprising: physical layer circuitry configured to transmit and receive radio frequency electrical signals with a radio access network; at least one hardware processor operatively coupled to the physical layer circuitry; and a memory storing instructions that cause the at least one hardware processor to perform operations including: establish a communication session with a credential device using the radio
access network (see col. 28 lines 5-28).
Claim 17 is rejected as applied to claim 9 as pertaining to a corresponding verification device.
Regarding claim 18, Niranjayan teaches including a camera to generate the video data (see col. 3 lines 1-17, Niranjayan discusses cameras capturing video data of persons).
Claim 19 is rejected as applied to claim 1 as pertaining to a corresponding computer-readable storage medium.
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 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 2, 11, 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Niranjayan (US 10,515,337) in view of Bulzacki (US 2013/0278501).
Regarding claim 2, Niranjayan does not expressly disclose wherein the correlating movement includes: identifying body key points of a person of the one or persons in the images of the video data; calculating correlation coefficients that correlate movement of the identified body key points and the received IMU information; and identifying the person in the video data as the holder according to the calculated correlation coefficients.
However, Bulzacki teaches wherein the correlating movement includes: identifying body key points of a person of the one or persons in the images of the video data (see para. 0075, Bulzacki discusses capturing video and detecting body points);
calculating correlation coefficients that correlate movement of the identified body key points and the received IMU information (see para. 0205, 0214, 0216, Bulzacki discusses coefficients corresponding to feature points on the person’s body and calculating temporal correlation coefficients describing the motion of the person’s33 skeleton); and
identifying the person in the video data as the holder according to the calculated correlation coefficients (see claim 1, Bulzacki discusses identifying location of body parts and body motion of a person in the video data).
Motivation to combine may be gleaned from the prior art considered. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of Niranjayan with Bulzacki to derive at the invention of claim 2. The result would have been expected, routine, and predictable in order to perform access control.
The determination of obviousness is predicated upon the following: One skilled in the art would have been motivated to modify Niranjayan in this manner in order to improve user access control by extracting body points that indicate the movement of a person across video frames to properly determine the identity of the person. Furthermore, the prior art collectively includes each element claimed (though not all in the same reference), and one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements in this manner explained using known engineering design, interface and/or programming techniques, without changing a fundamental operating principle of Niranjayan, while the teaching of Bulzacki continues to perform the same function as originally taught prior to being combined, in order to produce the repeatable and predictable result of calculating body key points of person captured across images, the key points allow the system to determine the physical movements of the person and match the identity of person. The Niranjayan and Bulzacki systems perform person identification, therefore a person having ordinary skill in the art would have reasonable expectation of success in the combination yielding predictable results. It is for at least the aforementioned reasons that the examiner has reached a conclusion of obviousness with respect to the claim in question.
Claim 11 is rejected as applied to claim 2 as pertaining to a corresponding verification device.
Claim 20 is rejected as applied to claim 2 as pertaining to a corresponding computer-readable storage medium.
Claims 4-6, 13, 14, 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Niranjayan (US 10,515,337) in view of Stahlfeld (US 2019/0095736).
Regarding claim 4, Niranjayan does not expressly disclose wherein the correlating movement includes: training a machine learning model, implemented by one or more processors of the PAC system, using correlated training IMU information and video data; inputting the IMU information received from the credential device and the video data received from the separate device into the machine learning model; detecting images of the one or more persons in the video data using the machine learning model; and matching the IMU information to the detected images using the machine learning model to identify the holder in possession of the credential device.
However, Stahlfeld teaches wherein the correlating movement includes: training a machine learning model, implemented by one or more processors of the PAC system, using correlated training IMU information and video data (see para. 0028, Stahlfeld discusses training a machine learning model to identify users in a video feed based on movement data received from user computing devices);
inputting the IMU information received from the credential device and the video data received from the separate device into the machine learning model (see para. 0029, 0159, Stahlfeld discusses entering received gyroscopic data and accelerometer data into the machine learning model);
detecting images of the one or more persons in the video data using the machine learning model (see para. 0159, Stahlfeld discusses capturing video data using the machine learning); and
matching the IMU information to the detected images using the machine learning model to identify the holder in possession of the credential device (see para. 0030, 0158, Stahlfeld discusses compare a serializable encoding of gyroscopic signatures and accelerometer signatures with the visual data for each detected person in the video feed to determine a similarity score).
Motivation to combine may be gleaned from the prior art considered. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of Niranjayan with Stahlfeld to derive at the invention of claim 4. The result would have been expected, routine, and predictable in order to perform access control.
The determination of obviousness is predicated upon the following: One skilled in the art would have been motivated to modify Niranjayan in this manner in order to improve user access control by implementing a trained neural network to match image data. Furthermore, the prior art collectively includes each element claimed (though not all in the same reference), and one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements in this manner explained using known engineering design, interface and/or programming techniques, without changing a fundamental operating principle of Niranjayan, while the teaching of Stahlfeld continues to perform the same function as originally taught prior to being combined, in order to produce the repeatable and predictable result of training a neural network to extract image data and determine corresponding images to determine the physical movements of the person and match the identity of person. The Niranjayan and Stahlfeld systems perform person identification, therefore a person having ordinary skill in the art would have reasonable expectation of success in the combination yielding predictable results. It is for at least the aforementioned reasons that the examiner has reached a conclusion of obviousness with respect to the claim in question.
Regarding claim 5, Stahlfeld teaches wherein inputting the IMU information and the video data includes inputting the IMU information received from the credential device into one portion of the neural network and inputting the video data received from the separate device into a second portion of the neural network (see para. 0029, 0158-0159, Stahlfeld discusses inputting the IMU information and the video data into a machine learning model).
The same motivation of claim 4 is applied to claim 5. Motivation to combine may be gleaned from the prior art considered. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of Niranjayan with Stahlfeld to derive at the invention of claim 5. The result would have been expected, routine, and predictable in order to perform access control.
Regarding claim 6, Stahlfeld teaches wherein training a machine learning model includes updating weights of connections of a neural network using the correlated training IMU information and video data to update the neural network; and wherein the matching the IMU information to the detected images includes matching the IMU information to the detected images using the updated neural network (see para. 0022, 0158, Stahlfeld discusses training the machine learning model that updates the neural network parameters).
The same motivation of claim 4 is applied to claim 6. Motivation to combine may be gleaned from the prior art considered. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of Niranjayan with Stahlfeld to derive at the invention of claim 6. The result would have been expected, routine, and predictable in order to perform access control.
Claim 13 is rejected as applied to claim 4 as pertaining to a corresponding verification device.
Claim 14 is rejected as applied to claim 6 as pertaining to a corresponding verification device.
Claim 21 is rejected as applied to claim 6 as pertaining to a corresponding computer-readable storage medium.
Claims 7, 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Niranjayan (US 10,515,337) in view of Venetianer et al. (US 2021/0358250).
Regarding claim 7, Niranjayan does not expressly disclose including: authenticating the credential information; processing subsequent video data that includes the holder of the credential device; and initiating access to a controlled access portal according to the credential information and the location of the holder of the credential device relative to the controlled access portal.
However, Venetianer teaches including: authenticating the credential information (see para. 0038, Venetianer discusses authenticating a person with a mobile device); processing subsequent video data that includes the holder of the credential device (see para. 0038, 0064, Venetianer discusses processing video data of the person with a mobile device); and initiating access to a controlled access portal according to the credential information and the location of the holder of the credential device relative to the controlled access portal (see para. 0126, 0133, Venetianer discusses allowing access to a secure location or restricted equipment when the person is authorized).
Motivation to combine may be gleaned from the prior art considered. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of Niranjayan with Venetianer to derive at the invention of claim 7. The result would have been expected, routine, and predictable in order to perform access control.
The determination of obviousness is predicated upon the following: One skilled in the art would have been motivated to modify Niranjayan in this manner in order to improve user access control by authenticating a person across video frames to properly determine the identity of the person and allow access to a controlled access portal. Furthermore, the prior art collectively includes each element claimed (though not all in the same reference), and one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements in this manner explained using known engineering design, interface and/or programming techniques, without changing a fundamental operating principle of Niranjayan, while the teaching of Venetianer continues to perform the same function as originally taught prior to being combined, in order to produce the repeatable and predictable result of authenticating a person captured across images, thus allowing access to a controlled access portal. The Niranjayan and Venetianer systems perform person identification, therefore a person having ordinary skill in the art would have reasonable expectation of success in the combination yielding predictable results. It is for at least the aforementioned reasons that the examiner has reached a conclusion of obviousness with respect to the claim in question.
Claim 15 is rejected as applied to claim 7 as pertaining to a corresponding verification device.
Claims 8, 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Niranjayan (US 10,515,337) in view of Lev et al. (US 2019/0080157).
Regarding claim 8, Niranjayan does not expressly disclose wherein the video data includes images of multiple persons, and the method further includes; receiving credential information from multiple credential devices; identifying holders of the multiple credential devices in the video data; and generating an alert when detecting a person of the multiple persons in the video data that is not in possession of a credential device.
However, Lev teaches wherein the video data includes images of multiple persons, and the method further includes; receiving credential information from multiple credential devices; identifying holders of the multiple credential devices in the video data; and generating an alert when detecting a person of the multiple persons in the video data that is not in possession of a credential device (see para. 0053, 0100, Lev discusses outputting anomalies such as physical activities of unauthorized persons detected in the monitored region, therefore not carrying an authorized credential mobile device).
Motivation to combine may be gleaned from the prior art considered. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of Niranjayan with Lev to derive at the invention of claim 8. The result would have been expected, routine, and predictable in order to perform access control.
The determination of obviousness is predicated upon the following: One skilled in the art would have been motivated to modify Niranjayan in this manner in order to improve user access control by authenticating a person across video frames and generating alerts when an unauthorized persons to properly control an access portal. Furthermore, the prior art collectively includes each element claimed (though not all in the same reference), and one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements in this manner explained using known engineering design, interface and/or programming techniques, without changing a fundamental operating principle of Niranjayan, while the teaching of Lev continues to perform the same function as originally taught prior to being combined, in order to produce the repeatable and predictable result of authenticating a person captured across images and detecting unauthorized persons, thus allowing proper access to a controlled access portal. The Niranjayan and Lev systems perform person identification, therefore a person having ordinary skill in the art would have reasonable expectation of success in the combination yielding predictable results. It is for at least the aforementioned reasons that the examiner has reached a conclusion of obviousness with respect to the claim in question.
Claim 16 is rejected as applied to claim 8 as pertaining to a corresponding verification device.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3, 12 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: No prior art was found to claim “determining a change in one or both of frequency and phase of movement of one or more body key points in images of the video data; determining a change in one or both of frequency and phase of the IMU information; and correlating the change in the one or both of frequency and phase of the IMU information with the change in one or both of frequency and phase of movement of the one or more body key points in images of the video data to identify the holder in the images of the video data.”
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Se et al. (US 2021/0004606) discusses detecting and tracking persons within the field of view, and a wireless tracking system is configured to detect and track at least one wireless object.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KENNY A CESE whose telephone number is (571) 270-1896. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday – Friday, 9am – 4pm.
If attempts to reach the primary examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Gregory Morse can be reached on (571) 272-3838. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Kenny A Cese/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2663
Prosecution Insights