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 § 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 1, 5-8, 13-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bapat et al. (US 2020/0226416) in view of Rehnby et al. (US 2023/0379438).
Regarding claim 1, Bapat teaches a method, comprising:
initiating display of a user interface element on an endpoint device, a state of the user interface element determining that facial recognition processing by a computing system is enabled or disabled (see para. 0250, Bapat discusses user interface that allows a user to enable and disable person detection); and
based at least in part on the user interface element being in a second state different from the first state, causing the computing system to perform facial recognition processing on data acquired by a camera to determine an identity of a person represented in the data (see para. 0250, Bapat discusses user interface that allows a user to enable and disable person detection in a smart home environment).
Bapat does not expressly disclose based at least in part on consent of a user being needed before performing facial recognition processing within an area, causing the endpoint device to present the user interface element in a first state corresponding to disablement of facial recognition processing by the computing system.
However, Rehnby teaches based at least in part on consent of a user being needed before performing facial recognition processing within an area, causing the endpoint device to present the user interface element in a first state corresponding to disablement of facial recognition processing by the computing system (see para. 0059, Rehnby discusses surveillance system maintain a data structure that is representative of a record of rules regarding facial recognition across different geographical areas e.g., states. This data structure could be manually programmed by an administrator, or this data structure could be automatically populated by the surveillance platform via the Internet. Upon receiving input that specifies the locations of the sites of an organization, the surveillance system may apply the rules to establish, on a per-site basis, whether to permit facial recognition).
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 Bapat with Rehnby to derive at the invention of claim 1. The result would have been expected, routine, and predictable in order to perform image surveillance.
The determination of obviousness is predicated upon the following: One skilled in the art would have been motivated to modify Bapat in this manner in order to improve image surveillance by implementing a facial recognition system that allows a user interface to enable or disable facial recognition to apply rules on per-site basis to avoid unwanted or impermissible facial analysis.
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 Bapat, while the teaching of Rehnby continues to perform the same function as originally taught prior to being combined, in order to produce the repeatable and predictable result of creating a flexible image surveillance system by providing a user interface that allows a user to enable or disable facial recognition. The Bapat and Rehnby systems perform image detection and human recognition, 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, Bapat teaches further comprising: receiving, by the computing system, additional data acquired by the camera; processing, by the computing system, the additional data to determine that a second person is represented therein; and based at least in part on the user interface element being in the first state, refraining from performing facial recognition processing on the additional data to determine an identity of the second person (see para. 0250-0251, Bapat discusses user interface that allows a user to enable and disable person detection in a smart home environment; see para. 0251, Bapat discusses a user may select an image and subsequently select the delete affordance to delete all personally identifiable information for captured persons in images. Disabling person detection via the affordance results in deletion of all personally identifiable information stored in the persons database for the smart home).
The same motivation of claim 1 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 Bapat with Rehnby to derive at the invention of claim 5. The result would have been expected, routine, and predictable in order to perform image surveillance.
Regarding claim 6, Rehnby teaches further comprising: determining an identifier of a geographic region in which a property monitored by the computing system is located; and causing the identifier to be evaluated against content of a datastore to determine that consent of the user is needed before performing facial recognition processing within the geographic region, the content including of identifiers of geographic regions in which consent is needed or not needed before performing facial recognition processing (see para. 0059, Rehnby discusses surveillance system maintain a data structure that is representative of a record of rules regarding facial recognition across different geographical areas e.g., states. This data structure could be manually programmed by an administrator, or this data structure could be automatically populated by the surveillance platform via the Internet. Upon receiving input that specifies the locations of the sites of an organization, the surveillance system may apply the rules to establish, on a per-site basis, whether to permit facial recognition).
The same motivation of claim 1 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 Bapat with Rehnby to derive at the invention of claim 6. The result would have been expected, routine, and predictable in order to perform image surveillance.
Regarding claim 7, Bapat teaches wherein: the user interface element being in the first state causes the computing system to process image data acquired by the camera to determine that people are represented in the image data but to refrain from performing facial recognition processing on the image data to determine identities of the people (see para. 0250-0251, Bapat discusses user interface that allows a user to enable and disable person detection in a smart home environment; see para. 0251, Bapat discusses a user may select an image and subsequently select the delete affordance to delete all personally identifiable information for captured persons in images. Disabling person detection via the affordance results in deletion of all personally identifiable information stored in the persons database for the smart home).
The same motivation of claim 1 is applied to claim 7. 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 Bapat with Rehnby to derive at the invention of claim 7. The result would have been expected, routine, and predictable in order to perform image surveillance.
Regarding claim 8, Bapat teaches a method, comprising:
initiating display of a user interface element on an endpoint device, a state of the user interface element determining that facial recognition processing by a computing system is enabled or disabled (see para. 0250-0251, Bapat discusses user interface that allows a user to enable and disable person detection in a smart home environment. The Examiner notes that “a state” cannot perform the active operational step of “determining”. The Examiner suggests the claim language be rewritten to “wherein a state of the user interface element indicates whether facial recognition processing is enabled or disabled”); and
based at least in part on the user interface element being in a second state different from the first state, causing the computing system to refrain from performing facial recognition processing on data acquired by a camera to determine an identity of a person represented in the data (see para. 0250, Bapat discusses user interface that allows a user to enable and disable person detection in a smart home environment).
Bapat does not expressly disclose based at least in part on consent of a user not being needed before performing facial recognition processing within an area, causing the endpoint device to present the user interface element in a first state corresponding to enablement of facial recognition processing by the computing system.
However, Rehnby teaches based at least in part on consent of a user not being needed before performing facial recognition processing within an area, causing the endpoint device to present the user interface element in a first state corresponding to enablement of facial recognition processing by the computing system (see para. 0059, Rehnby discusses surveillance system maintain a data structure that is representative of a record of rules regarding facial recognition across different geographical areas e.g., states. This data structure could be manually programmed by an administrator, or this data structure could be automatically populated by the surveillance platform via the Internet. Upon receiving input that specifies the locations of the sites of an organization, the surveillance system may apply the rules to establish, on a per-site basis, whether to permit facial recognition).
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 Bapat with Rehnby to derive at the invention of claim 8. The result would have been expected, routine, and predictable in order to perform image surveillance.
The determination of obviousness is predicated upon the following: One skilled in the art would have been motivated to modify Bapat in this manner in order to improve image surveillance by implementing a facial recognition system that allows a user interface to enable or disable facial recognition to apply rules on per-site basis to avoid unwanted or impermissible facial analysis.
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 Bapat, while the teaching of Rehnby continues to perform the same function as originally taught prior to being combined, in order to produce the repeatable and predictable result of creating a flexible image surveillance system by providing a user interface that allows a user to enable or disable facial recognition. The Bapat and Rehnby systems perform image detection and human recognition, 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 13, Rehnby teaches further comprising: determining an identifier of a geographic region in which a property monitored by the computing system is located; and causing the identifier to be evaluated against content of a datastore to determine that consent of the user is not needed before performing facial recognition processing within the geographic region, the content including of identifiers of geographic regions in which consent is needed or not needed before performing facial recognition processing (see para. 0059, Rehnby discusses surveillance system may maintain a data structure that is representative of a record of rules regarding facial recognition across different geographical areas e.g., states. This data structure could be manually programmed by an administrator, or this data structure could be automatically populated by the surveillance system via the Internet. Upon receiving input that specifies the locations of the sites of an organization, the surveillance platform may apply the rules to establish, on a per-site basis, whether to permit facial recognition).
The same motivation of claim 8 is applied to claim 13. 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 Bapat with Rehnby to derive at the invention of claim 13. The result would have been expected, routine, and predictable in order to perform image surveillance.
Regarding claim 14, Bapat teaches wherein: the user interface element being in the second state causes the computing system to process image data acquired by the camera to determine that people are represented in the image data but to refrain from performing facial recognition processing on the image data to determine identities of the people (see para. 0250, Bapat discusses user interface that allows a user to enable and disable person detection in a smart home environment).
The same motivation of claim 8 is applied to claim 14. 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 Bapat with Rehnby to derive at the invention of claim 14. The result would have been expected, routine, and predictable in order to perform image surveillance.
Claim 15 is rejected as applied to claim 6 as pertaining to a corresponding system.
Claim 16 is rejected as applied to claim 2 as pertaining to a corresponding system.
Claim 17 is rejected as applied to claim 3 as pertaining to a corresponding system.
Claim 18 is rejected as applied to claim 4 as pertaining to a corresponding system.
Claim 19 is rejected as applied to claim 5 as pertaining to a corresponding system.
Regarding claim 20, Bapat teaches wherein the one or more processors and the one or more computer-readable mediums are included in the endpoint device (see para. 0103, Barap discusses a mobile smart phone or computer for communication device).
The same motivation of claim 8 is applied to claim 20. 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 Bapat with Rehnby to derive at the invention of claim 20. The result would have been expected, routine, and predictable in order to perform image surveillance.
Claims 2-4, 9-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bapat et al. (US 2020/0226416) in view of Rehnby et al. (US 2023/0379438) in view of Ton-That et al. (US 2022/0122356).
Regarding claim 2, Bapat and Rehnby do not expressly disclose further comprising: generating, by the computing system, a first vector representing a plurality of characteristics of a first face represented in the data; identifying, by the computing system, a second vector representing the plurality of characteristics of a second face represented in other data, the second face belonging to the person; and determining, by the computing system, the identity of the person based at least in part on the first vector corresponding to the second vector.
However, Ton-That teaches further comprising: generating, by the computing system, a first vector representing a plurality of characteristics of a first face represented in the data (see para. 0069, Ton-That discusses vector representation of the captured facial image of a person);
identifying, by the computing system, a second vector representing the plurality of characteristics of a second face represented in other data, the second face belonging to the person (see para. 0069, Ton-That discusses vector representation of the captured facial image of a person); and
determining, by the computing system, the identity of the person based at least in part on the first vector corresponding to the second vector (see claim 1, Ton-That discusses comparing facial recognition data to reference facial recognition data associated with a plurality of stored facial images of individuals in the database to identify one or more candidates matching the captured facial image based on a Euclidean distance value, and a smaller Euclidean distance value indicates a higher degree of match between the facial recognition data and the reference facial recognition 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 Bapat and Rehnby with Ton-That to derive at the invention of claim 2. The result would have been expected, routine, and predictable in order to perform image surveillance.
The determination of obviousness is predicated upon the following: One skilled in the art would have been motivated to modify Bapat and Rehnby in this manner in order to improve image surveillance by implementing a facial recognition system that allows a user interface to enable or disable facial recognition to apply rules on a per-site basis to avoid unwanted or impermissible facial analysis and obtaining image feature vectors to properly perform image matching. 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 Bapat and Rehnby, while the teaching of Ton-That continues to perform the same function as originally taught prior to being combined, in order to produce the repeatable and predictable result of creating a flexible image surveillance system by providing a user interface that allows a user to enable or disable facial recognition and obtaining feature vectors that improve image matching. The Bapat, Rehnby, and Ton-That systems perform image detection and human recognition, 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 3, Ton-That teaches wherein determining that the first vector corresponds to the second vector includes: determining that the first vector and the second vector are within a threshold degree of similarity (see claim 1, Ton-That discusses comparing facial recognition data to reference facial recognition data associated with a plurality of stored facial images of individuals in the database to identify one or more candidates matching the captured facial image based on a Euclidean distance value, and a smaller Euclidean distance value indicates a higher degree of match between the facial recognition data and the reference facial recognition data).
The same motivation of claim 2 is applied to claim 3. 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 Bapat and Rehnby with Ton-That to derive at the invention of claim 3. The result would have been expected, routine, and predictable in order to perform image surveillance.
Regarding claim 4, Ton-That teaches wherein generating the first vector comprises identifying and measuring facial features represented in an image of the first face (see para. 0069, Ton-That discusses vector representation of the captured facial image of a person).
The same motivation of claim 2 is applied to claim 4. 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 Bapat and Rehnby with Ton-That to derive at the invention of claim 4. The result would have been expected, routine, and predictable in order to perform image surveillance.
Regarding claim 9, Bapat and Rehnby do not expressly disclose further comprising: receiving, by the computing system, additional data acquired by the camera; processing, by the computing system, the additional data to determine that a second person is represented therein; and based at least in part on the user interface element being in the first state, causing the computing system to perform facial recognition processing on the additional data to determine an identity of the second person.
However, Ton-That teaches further comprising: receiving, by the computing system, additional data acquired by the camera; processing, by the computing system, the additional data to determine that a second person is represented therein; and based at least in part on the user interface element being in the first state, causing the computing system to perform facial recognition processing on the additional data to determine an identity of the second person (see claim 1, Ton-That discusses comparing facial recognition data to reference facial recognition data associated with a plurality of stored facial images of individuals in the database to identify one or more candidates matching the captured facial image based on a Euclidean distance value, and a smaller Euclidean distance value indicates a higher degree of match between the facial recognition data and the reference facial recognition 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 Bapat and Rehnby with Ton-That to derive at the invention of claim 9. The result would have been expected, routine, and predictable in order to perform image surveillance.
The determination of obviousness is predicated upon the following: One skilled in the art would have been motivated to modify Bapat and Rehnby in this manner in order to improve image surveillance by implementing a facial recognition system that allows a user interface to enable or disable facial recognition to apply rules on a per-site basis to avoid unwanted or impermissible facial analysis and obtaining image feature vectors to properly perform image matching. 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 Bapat and Rehnby, while the teaching of Ton-That continues to perform the same function as originally taught prior to being combined, in order to produce the repeatable and predictable result of creating a flexible image surveillance system by providing a user interface that allows a user to enable or disable facial recognition and obtaining feature vectors that improve image matching. The Bapat, Rehnby, and Ton-That systems perform image detection and human recognition, 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 10, Ton-That teaches further comprising: generating, by the computing system, a first vector representing a plurality of characteristics of a first face represented in the additional data; identifying, by the computing system, a second vector representing the plurality of characteristics of a second face represented in other data, the second face belonging to the second person (see para. 0069, Ton-That discusses vector representation of the captured facial image of a person); and determining, by the computing system, the identity of the second person based at least in part on the first vector corresponding to the second vector (see claim 1, Ton-That discusses comparing facial recognition data to reference facial recognition data associated with a plurality of stored facial images of individuals in the database to identify one or more candidates matching the captured facial image based on a Euclidean distance value, and a smaller Euclidean distance value indicates a higher degree of match between the facial recognition data and the reference facial recognition data).
The same motivation of claim 9 is applied to claim 10. 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 Bapat and Rehnby with Ton-That to derive at the invention of claim 10. The result would have been expected, routine, and predictable in order to perform image surveillance.
Regarding claim 11, Ton-That teaches wherein determining that the first vector corresponds to the second vector includes: determining that the first vector and the second vector are within a threshold degree of similarity (see claim 1, Ton-That discusses comparing facial recognition data to reference facial recognition data associated with a plurality of stored facial images of individuals in the database to identify one or more candidates matching the captured facial image based on a Euclidean distance value, and a smaller Euclidean distance value indicates a higher degree of match between the facial recognition data and the reference facial recognition data).
The same motivation of claim 9 is applied to claim 11. 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 Bapat and Rehnby with Ton-That to derive at the invention of claim 11. The result would have been expected, routine, and predictable in order to perform image surveillance.
Regarding claim 12, Ton-That teaches wherein generating the first vector comprises identifying and measuring facial features represented in an image of the first face (see para. 0069, Ton-That discusses vector representation of the captured facial image of a person).
The same motivation of claim 9 is applied to claim 12. 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 Bapat and Rehnby with Ton-That to derive at the invention of claim 12. The result would have been expected, routine, and predictable in order to perform image surveillance.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Yi et al. (US 2019/0205620) discusses two face images of the same person would have a greater similarity score between their corresponding feature vectors.
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