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 12/10/2024 and 11/5/2025 were considered and placed on the file of record by the examiner.
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.
Claims 1, 7, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention.
The following highlighted claims 1, 7, and 13 language is not sufficiently enabled by the specification. The specification does not describe an application corresponding to an identifier:
“based at least in part on the first request, causing, by the computing system, a second request to be sent to a first application corresponding to the identifier, the second request seeking authorization from the person to use of biometric facial recognition using one or more images of the person;”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1, 7, and 13 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.
The following phrase renders the claims 1, 7, and 13 language grammatically indefinite; “at least a first image of a first face the person;”
The following phrase renders the claims 1, 7, and 13 language grammatically indefinite; “the second request seeking authorization from the person to use of biometric facial recognition using one or more images of the person;”
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 1-3, 5, 7-10, 13-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Tussy et al. (US 2020/0042685).
Regarding claim 1, Tussy teaches a method, comprising:
receiving, by a computing system, a first request to create a profile for a person (see figure 5, Tussy discusses receiving login credentials to account server);
determining, by the computing system, an identifier for the person (see figure 5, figure 8, figure 9, figure 18, Tussy discusses requesting to store user account or unique identifier);
based at least in part on the first request, causing, by the computing system, a second request to be sent to a first application corresponding to the identifier, the second request seeking authorization from the person to use of biometric facial recognition using one or more images of the person (see figure 5, figure 8, figure 9, figure 18, Tussy discusses obtaining enrollment biometric information from enrollment images via facial recognition);
receiving, by the computing system, a response to the second request, the response indicating that the person has authorized use of biometric facial recognition using one or more images of the person (see figure 5, figure 8, figure 9, figure 18, Tussy discusses obtaining enrollment biometric information from enrollment images via facial recognition);
determining, by the computing system, at least a first image of a first face the person (see figure 12B, para. 0184-0185, Tussy discusses identifying facial features in an image); and
based at least in part on the response, generating, by the computing system and using the first image, a first vector representing a plurality of characteristics of the first face (see figure 12B, para. 0184-0185, Tussy discusses system checks if the two-dimensional vectors of foreground features match expected values of a live, three-dimensional person).
Regarding claim 2, Tussy teaches wherein the identifier comprises an email address or phone number of the person (see claim 1, Tussy discusses user's email address used to receive the digital ID).
Regarding claim 3, Tussy teaches further comprising: generating, by the computing system, a second vector representing the plurality of characteristics of a second face represented in image data acquired by a camera (see figure 12B, para. 0184-0185, 0337, Tussy discusses feature vectors of a live, three-dimensional person);
determining, by the computing system, that the second vector corresponds to the first vector; and determining, by the computing system, that the person is represented in the image data based at least in part on the second vector corresponding to the first vector (see figure 12B, para. 0184-0185, 0337, Tussy discusses system checks if the two-dimensional vectors of foreground features match expected values of a live, three-dimensional person).
Regarding claim 5, Tussy teaches wherein generating the first vector comprises generating a biometric embedding for the first face (see para. 0088, Tussy discusses facial recognition on the authentication images to obtain biometric information, "authentication biometrics"; see para. 0337, Tussy discusses biometric information obtained from a user’s face).
Claim 7 is rejected as applied to claim 1 as pertaining to a corresponding system.
Claim 8 is rejected as applied to claim 2 as pertaining to a corresponding system.
Claim 9 is rejected as applied to claim 5 as pertaining to a corresponding system.
Claim 10 is rejected as applied to claim 3 as pertaining to a corresponding system.
Claim 13 is rejected as applied to claim 1 as pertaining to corresponding one or more non-transitory computer-readable mediums.
Claim 14 is rejected as applied to claim 2 as pertaining to corresponding one or more non-transitory computer-readable mediums.
Claim 15 is rejected as applied to claim 5 as pertaining to corresponding one or more non-transitory computer-readable mediums.
Claim 16 is rejected as applied to claim 3 as pertaining to corresponding one or more non-transitory computer-readable mediums.
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 4, 6, 11, 12, 17, 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tussy et al. (US 2020/0042685) in view of Weston et al. (US 2022/0382840).
Regarding claim 4, Tussy does not expressly disclose storing, by the computing system and in a datastore, at least first data representing an image of the second face (see para. 0049, Tussy discusses a database with stored images);
based at least in part on the computing system determining that the person is represented in the image data, storing, by the computing system and in the datastore, second data in association with the first data, the second data indicating that the image of the second face corresponds to the person (see para. 0049, Tussy discusses matching a face of a user to an image stored in a database; see para. 0088, Tussy discusses perform facial recognition on the authentication images to obtain biometric information, "authentication biometrics"; see para. 0091, Tussy discusses authentication biometrics compared with enrollment biometrics) and
based at least in part on the first data and the second data having been stored in the datastore, causing the second application to output an indication that the image of the second face corresponds to the person (see para. 0240, Tussy discusses authentication server may then authenticate the identity of the user, authentication images and/or biometrics. The authentication server then transmits an authorization message to the Gateway. Once the gateway has received confirmation of the authorization, the Gateway then communicates with the retail establishment to allow the retail transaction).
Tussy does not expressly disclose wherein the first request is received from a second application executing under control of an endpoint device associated with a property monitored by the computing system. However, Weston teaches wherein the first request is received from a second application executing under control of an endpoint device associated with a property monitored by the computing system (see para. 0039, Weston discusses that receives image data captured at a physical location, and a security monitoring component that monitors activity at the physical location based on the image data. The security monitoring component can comprise an image data analysis component that evaluates the image data using two or more independent identification technologies and/or platforms to identify people included in the image data and/or characteristics of the people).
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 Tussy with Weston to derive at the invention of claim 4. The result would have been expected, routine, and predictable in order to perform facial recognition in a surveillance network.
The determination of obviousness is predicated upon the following: One skilled in the art would have been motivated to modify Tussy in this manner in order to improve facial recognition by extracting vectors that include feature data in images and comparing the vectors from two images to properly identify matches and determine the identity of the face in the input image. 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 Tussy, while the teaching of Weston continues to perform the same function as originally taught prior to being combined, in order to produce the repeatable and predictable result of calculating the vectors in different facial images to properly compare features in facial regions and identify a matching facial image. The Tussy and Weston systems perform person recognition, therefore one of ordinary skill in the art would have reasonable expectation of success in the combination. 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 6, Tussy does not expressly disclose wherein the first request is received from a second application executing under control of an endpoint device associated with a property monitored by the computing system.
However, Weston teaches wherein the first request is received from a second application executing under control of an endpoint device associated with a property monitored by the computing system (see para. 0039, Weston discusses image data captured at a physical location, and a security monitoring component that monitors activity at the physical location based on the image data. The security monitoring component can comprise an image data analysis component that evaluates the image data using two or more independent identification technologies and/or platforms to identify people included in the image data and/or characteristics of the people).
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 Tussy with Weston to derive at the invention of claim 6. The result would have been expected, routine, and predictable in order to perform facial recognition in a surveillance network.
The determination of obviousness is predicated upon the following: One skilled in the art would have been motivated to modify Tussy in this manner in order to improve facial recognition by extracting vectors that include feature data in images and comparing the vectors from two images to properly identify matches and determine the identity of the face in the input image. 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 Tussy, while the teaching of Weston continues to perform the same function as originally taught prior to being combined, in order to produce the repeatable and predictable result of calculating the vectors in different facial images to properly compare features in facial regions and identify a matching facial image. The Tussy and Weston systems perform person recognition, therefore one of ordinary skill in the art would have reasonable expectation of success in the combination. 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 4 as pertaining to a corresponding system.
Claim 12 is rejected as applied to claim 6 as pertaining to a corresponding system.
Claim 17 is rejected as applied to claim 4 as pertaining to corresponding one or more non-transitory computer-readable mediums.
Claim 18 is rejected as applied to claim 6 as pertaining to corresponding one or more non-transitory computer-readable mediums.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Mostafa et al. (US 11,527,107) discusses biometric authentication and identifying individuals in an image and/or compare individuals in images to a database of individuals to match the faces of individuals.
Park et al. (US 2021/0385417) discusses an individual that is matched via facial recognition analysis using image information captured by the cameras.
Ganong et al. (US 2017/0124385) discusses PCA vector compared against the known faces in the database.
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