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 .
Detail Action
This office action is response to the application 18/948,409 filed on 11/14/2024. Claims 1-11 are pending in this communication.
Priority
This application claims priority from JAPAN 2023-212196 12/15/2023. Priority date has been accepted.
Examiner’s Note
The examiner is requesting the applicant’s representative to provide direct phone number and/or mobile phone number in next communication, which will be very helpful to advance the prosecution.
Objection
The title of the invention is not clearly descriptive. A new title is requested which is clearly indicative of the invention to which the independent claims are directed to. For example: a computing device boots after a successful authentication of a user’s face.
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 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. OR
(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 & 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by TRIM; James Damon et al. (US 20190227602 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, TRIM anticipates an information processing apparatus comprising:
a memory which temporarily stores a program of a system; a first processor {ABSTRACT, [0024], “FIG. 1, the components located in the first housing 102 may include at least one central processing unit (CPU) 112, a graphics process unit (GPU) 114, and a memory (e.g., computer-readable media) 116. The GPU 114 may be integrated into the CPU 112 or may be a separate device from the GPU 114. In some cases, a computer motherboard that includes the CPU 112, the memory 116, and the like may be located in the first housing 102”. Examiner’s note: one processor is used by the computer and another processor used by camera to detect face recognition} which executes face authentication processing to detect an area of a face image with a face captured therein from a captured image captured by an imaging unit and to authenticate whether or not a person of the detected face image is a registered user based on information on the detected face image and information on a face image of the registered user; and a second processor which executes the program of the system to boot the system from a standby state based on a fact that authentication by the face authentication processing is successful {[0018], “ the boot process may authenticate the user by capturing an image of the user's face as the user faces the biometric sensor (e.g., an imaging sensor, such as a camera) and performing facial recognition by comparing the scanned facial features with previously stored facials scans of one or more authorized users of the computing device”. Examiner’s note: a processing device boot from passive standby/hibernation state to active state},
wherein when the authentication by the face authentication processing is unsuccessful, the first processor executes the face authentication processing again, and when executing the face authentication processing repeatedly due to failures of the authentication by the face authentication processing, the first processor stops the face authentication processing based on the number of times the face authentication processing is executed {Fig. 8 elements 810 YES/NO test of biometric data match & [0069], “… The process may proceed to 810 where a determination may be made whether the additional biometric data matches the stored biometric data. The process may repeat 810 and 812 a predetermined number of times …”}.
Regarding claim 11, claim 11 is claim to a method using the apparatus of claim 1. Therefore, claim 11 is rejected for the reasons set forth for claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of AIA 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.
Claims 2 & 3 are rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over TRIM; James Damon et al. (US 2019/0227602 A1) in view of TOMI; Hideyasu et al. (US 2019/0042839 A1).
Regarding Claim 2, TRIM anticipates all the features of claim 1 and TRIM further anticipates
the first processor stops the face authentication processing based on a fact that the number of times the face authentication processing is executed has reached a preset number of times since the presence of the person was detected by the person detection processing {Fig. 8 elements 810 YES/NO test of biometric data match & [0069], “… The process may proceed to 810 where a determination may be made whether the additional biometric data matches the stored biometric data. The process may repeat 810 and 812 a predetermined number of times …”}.
TRIM, however, does not explicitly disclose
the first processor executes person detection processing … detecting the area of the face image with the face captured therein from the captured image, and when the presence of a person is detected by the person detection processing, the first processor moves from the person detection processing to the face authentication processing, and …
In an analogous reference TOMI discloses
the first processor executes person detection processing … detecting the area of the face image with the face captured therein from the captured image, and when the presence of a person is detected by the person detection processing, the first processor moves from the person detection processing to the face authentication processing {[0039], “In the sleep mode, power is supplied to only the LAN controller 406, the power supply control unit 404, a CPU 411 of the operation unit 102, a CPU 421 of the person detection/facial authentication unit 420, and the person detection sensor 111 which are necessary for returning from the power saving state” … [0046], “The person detection processing unit 502 determines whether or not there is a person within the detection range 200 based on the data received from the person detection data reception unit 501, and transmits the determination result to the power supply control unit 404. At that time, a method in which it is determined that a person is present if a value of an intensity signal of infrared light that the pyroelectric infrared sensor outputted is greater than or equal to a threshold, for example, may be used as the method for determining that a person is present”}, and …
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to modify TRIM’s technique of ‘a computing device boots after a successful identification of a face and uses a threshold for number of authentication failure’ for ‘detecting a person as a whole in addition to face by measuring distance of the body’, as taught by TOMI. The motivation is - Standard facial recognition can sometimes be tricked by high-resolution photos, videos, or 3D masks. By requiring body detection and distance measurements, the device ensures that a physical, 3D person is standing in front of it.
All references are inventions in analogous area but each invention teaches specific claimed limitation specifically and other references mutually cure each other’s deficiencies. When all claimed techniques are combined, they teach claimed invention. The Examiner notes that this motivation applies to all dependent and/or otherwise subsequently addressed claims unless addressed separately.
Regarding Claim 3, TRIM as modified by TOMI discloses all the features of claim 2. The combination further discloses
wherein when stopping the face authentication processing due to failures of the authentication by the face authentication processing, the first processor moves to the person detection processing {TOMI: [0039], “In the sleep mode, power is supplied to only the LAN controller 406, the power supply control unit 404, a CPU 411 of the operation unit 102, a CPU 421 of the person detection/facial authentication unit 420, and the person detection sensor 111 which are necessary for returning from the power saving state” … [0046], “The person detection processing unit 502 determines whether or not there is a person within the detection range 200 based on the data received from the person detection data reception unit 501, and transmits the determination result to the power supply control unit 404. At that time, a method in which it is determined that a person is present if a value of an intensity signal of infrared light that the pyroelectric infrared sensor outputted is greater than or equal to a threshold, for example, may be used as the method for determining that a person is present”}.
Claims 4 & 5 are rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over TRIM; James Damon et al. (US 2019/0227602 A1) in view of TOMI; Hideyasu et al. (US 2019/0042839 A1) and further in view of SUDARSAN; Sithu et al. (US 2019/0332871 A1).
Regarding Claim 4, TRIM as modified by TOMI disclose all the features of claim 3 and the combination, however, does not disclose
wherein when the presence of a person is detected by the person detection processing after stopping the face authentication processing, the first processor determines whether or not the number of persons that exist changes, and when determining that the number of persons that exist changes, the first processor moves from the person detection processing to the face authentication processing again.
In an analogous reference SUDARSAN discloses
wherein when the presence of a person is detected by the person detection processing after stopping the face authentication processing, the first processor determines whether or not the number of persons that exist changes, and when determining that the number of persons that exist changes, the first processor moves from the person detection processing to the face authentication processing again {[0011], “controller is configured to: detect a number of persons in the at least one portion of the building based on information from the at least one first set of sensors for detecting person related information that identifies a person; authenticate the number of persons detected with the first set of sensors by comparing the information from the first set of sensors with a registered information with the building automation system and determining a number of authenticated person in the portion of the building based on successful authentication” … biometric sensors include sensors for iris recognition, fingerprint, gesture recognition, palm veins, face recognition, gaze, health and wellness, voice recognition, hand geometry and body odor”}.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to modify TRIM’s technique as modified by TOMI of ‘a computing device boots after a successful identification of a face and uses a threshold for number of authentication failure for detecting a person as a whole in addition to face by measuring distance of the body’, for counting number of persons in scanning and comparing to registered information, as taught by SUDARSAN. The motivation is - implementing a system where a device boots only after identifying a face, measuring body distance, and monitoring authentication failure thresholds creates a high-assurance spatial security model. Integrating people counting into this flow adds a secondary layer of "environmental verification," ensuring that the registered user is not just identified, but is also in a secure, expected physical context (e.g., alone at their desk or with a specific number of authorized persons).
Regarding Claim 5, TRIM as modified by TOMI & SUDARSAN discloses all the features of claim 4. The combination further discloses
wherein when the presence of the person is no longer detected by the person detection processing after stopping the face authentication processing, the first processor continues the person detection processing without moving to the face authentication processing, and when the presence of a person is detected, the first processor moves from the person detection processing to the face authentication processing {SUDARSAN: [0011], “authenticate the number of persons detected with the first set of sensors by comparing the information from the first set of sensors with a registered information with the building automation system and determining a number of authenticated person in the portion of the building based on successful authentication” … biometric sensors include sensors for iris recognition, fingerprint, gesture recognition, palm veins, face recognition}.
Claim 10 is rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over TRIM; James Damon et al. (US 2019/0227602 A1) in view of MATSUDA; Yusuke et al. (US 2015/0379254 A1).
Regarding Claim 10, TRIM anticipates all the features of claim 1, TRIM, however, does not explicitly disclose
wherein the first processor executes user registration processing to register information based on a face image of a user using the information processing apparatus.
In an analogous reference MATSUDA discloses
wherein the first processor executes user registration processing to register information based on a face image of a user using the information processing apparatus {[0150], “Then, the image input unit 18, utilizing the extraction property of the third feature information 6-3 of the i-th registered group i in the registration database 8, generates the third feature information 6-3 from the biometric modality information of each of the authentication-requesting persons j as input data (S504). The authentication unit 101 then collates the third feature information 6-3, which is the generated input data, with the third feature information 6-3, which is the i-th registered data in the registration database 8, and calculates a collation score 3 j(i) (S505)”. Examiner’s note: the cited reference generates a registration database based on biometric authentication of participants}.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to modify TRIM’s technique of ‘a computing device boots after a successful identification of a face and uses a threshold for number of authentication failure’ for generating a registration database based on biometric authentication of participants. The motivation is - using a computing device that boots only after a successful face identification—combined with a failure threshold—is an elite strategy for building a high-fidelity Registration Database. While simple face-unlocking protects a device, using these triggers to generate a database ensures that the identities being recorded are verified, unique, and "clean" from the start.
Allowable subject matter
Claims 6-8 will be allowable if written in independent form with base apparatus claim 1. For allowability, the independent method Claim 11 is required to be in same scope with equivalent limitations of claims 6-8 as proposed for amended claim 1.
Reasons of allowance: what is missing from the prior arts is: the person detection processing is processing lower in power consumption than the face authentication processing, and a frame rate when detecting the area of the face image with the face captured therein from the captured image in the person detection processing is lower than that in the face authentication processing.
Therefore, claims 6-9 are objected.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to QUAZI FAROOQUI whose telephone number is (571) 270-1034 or Quazi.farooqui@USPTO.GOV. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 9:00 am to 5:30 pm, EST. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Bill Korzuch can be reached on (571) 272-7589 or William.Korzuch@USPTO.GOV. The fax phone number for Examiner Farooqui assigned is 571-270-2034.
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-flee). 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.
/QUAZI FAROOQUI/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2491