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 .
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.
DETAILED ACTION
Priority
This application claims priority to provisional 63/622,413 filed 1/18/24.
Examiner Note
The examiner suggests an interview to discuss various clarifications that would better reflect applicant’s invention and move prosecution toward allowance.
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)(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.
(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 1-2, 4-6, 9-11, 14-17, 19-21, 24-26, 29-30 are rejected under 35 USC 102 as being anticipated by US 2011/0142300, Zhang et al. (hereafter Zhang)
1. A non-transitory computer readable medium having instructions thereon, the instructions when executed by a computer, causing the computer to facilitate recognition of a subject by identifying the subject's family in an image gallery of families, whether or not the subject's appearance has changed, by exploiting a genetic similarity of facial features between family members; the instructions causing operations comprising:
generating a family set for a plurality of individuals, the family set comprising mapped family relations designated between the plurality of individuals in the family set; (Zhang Fig 4, mapped family relations)
generating the image gallery of families, the image gallery of families comprising one or more facial images of each of the plurality of individuals in the family set, the one or more facial images each comprising a unique identification that correlates to the mapped family relations designated between the plurality of individuals in the family set; (Zhang Fig 4, image gallery of families)
processing the image gallery of families based on the unique identifications to divide the plurality of individuals into different types of groups which represent common phenotypes in one or more facial images of group members, wherein weights are assigned and used to optimize familial signatures that represent different families in the image gallery of families; (Zhang Fig 4 image gallery different groups)
receiving one or more facial images of the subject, the one or more facial images of the subject comprising one or more current facial images taken after occurrence of potential appearance related changes to subject; (Zhang ¶15 receives digital images; note “potential” does not further limit as potential does not actually indicate any change took place; further, a picture taken at a different time would have some appearance related changes from a haircut, facial expression, wardrobe, etc. that any picture taken at a different time would have an appearance related change to the subject)
detecting one or more phenotypes of the subject based on the one or more facial images of the subject; and (Zhang ¶24 facial similarity analysis)
comparing the one or more phenotypes of the subject to the familial signatures to generate an ordered list of family probabilities from a family that most resembles the subject to a family that least resembles the subject. (Zhang ¶29 ranked clusters)
Claim 16 is rejected under a similar rationale.
2. The medium of claim 1, wherein the subject is or was a missing child, a baby or child who has aged to an older child or adult, a subject who has experienced significant weight gain or loss, a subject who has aged enough to significantly change in physical appearance, and/or a subject who has experienced significant hair loss. (An adult is a baby or child who has aged; Zhang Fig 4 are 40 individual)
Claim 17 is rejected under a similar rationale.
4. The medium of claim 1, wherein the mapped family relations comprise parent-child, sibling- sibling, grandparent-grandchild, uncle/aunt-nephew/niece, and corresponding inverses of these relationships. (Zhang Fig 4, various relationships)
Claim 19 is rejected under a similar rationale.
5. The medium of claim 1, wherein a phenotype comprises a detectable characteristic in a facial image. (Zhang ¶24 facial similarity analysis)
Claim 20 is rejected under a similar rationale.
6. The medium of claim 5, wherein the different phenotypes comprise parts of faces, indications of kinship, age, gender, race, eye color, hair color, skin color, presence of unique skin characteristics, and/or bone structure. (Zhang ¶39 age, ethnicity, gender)
Claim 21 is rejected under a similar rationale.
9. The medium of claim 1, the operations further comprising saving familial embeddings, individual embeddings, and corresponding metadata in a database. (Zhang Fig 1. Storage device)
Claim 24 is rejected under a similar rationale.
10. The medium of claim 1, wherein recognizing the subject is agnostic of whatever potential appearance related change may or may not have been undergone by the subject. (Zhang processes the images without consideration of appearance related changes)
Claim 25 is rejected under a similar rationale.
11. The medium of claim 1, wherein the familial signatures are determined by extracting and aggregating common phenotypes associated with one or more facial images of individuals in a family. (Zhang ¶24 facial similarity analysis)
Claim 26 is rejected under a similar rationale.
14. The medium of claim 1, wherein comparing the one or more phenotypes of the subject to the familial signatures comprises determining an embedding representing the subject's face, the embedding collectively representing one or more phenotypes associated with the subject, and comparing the embedding to each of the familial signatures, and (Zhang ¶39 age, ethnicity, gender)
wherein the ordered list of family probabilities is determined based on the comparing of the embedding to the familial signatures. (Zhang ¶121 list)
Claim 29 is rejected under a similar rationale.
15. The medium of claim 14, wherein the embedding is multidimensional, with different dimensions corresponding to different phenotypes of the subject. (Zhang ¶39 age, ethnicity, gender)
Claim 30 is rejected under a similar rationale.
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 of this title, 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 3, 12-13, 18, 24-25 are rejected under 35 USC 103 as unpatentable over Zhang.
3. The medium of claim 1, wherein the plurality of individuals comprises hundreds of individuals, thousands of individuals, millions of individuals, or billions of individuals. (While Zhang’s system does not specify the number of individuals the system can handle, each new individual’s processing is merely a repetition of the process and is therefore obvious as the system is not confined to a limited number of individuals.
Claim 18 is rejected under a similar rationale.
12. The medium of claim 11, wherein the aggregating comprises averaging. Zhang does not disclose using an average, however, using an average is a common way of normalizing values and is therefore obvious for the purposes of normalizing each relationship.
Claim 24 is rejected under a similar rationale.
13. The medium of claim 1, the operations further comprising causing display, in a user interface, of possible families in the ordered list, presented in descending order from the family that most resembles the subject to the family that least resembles the subject.
Zhang does not disclose possible families in the ordered list in descending order. However, presenting a sorted list of most likely to least likely is a very standard way of presenting data and is therefore obvious for the purposes of presenting the most important information first.
Claim 25 is rejected under a similar rationale.
Claims are rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang in view of US 2013/0182963, Cok (hereafter Cok).
7. The medium of claim 6, wherein assigning and using weights to optimize familial signatures that represent different families in the image gallery of families comprises:
assigning weights based on different types of family relations, including parent-child, sibling-sibling, grandparent-grandchild, uncle/aunt-nephew/niece, cousin-cousin, and/or corresponding inverses of these; (Zhang Fig 4. Parent-child)
determining separate face embeddings for each of the plurality of individuals; and (Zhang Fig 4 similarities)
determining weighted averages of facial embeddings for different sub-groups, the different sub-groups comprising grandparents, uncles, aunts, cousins, parents, siblings, brothers, and/or sisters. (Zhang Fig 4 similarities)
Zhang does not disclose assigning weights and determining weighted averages. Cok ¶37-39 disclosing placing weights on the relationship weight. It would have been obvious to modify the system of Zhang to assign weights to relationships for the purposes of determining the amount of relevance in familial relationships as taught by Cok (¶46).
Zhang and Cok do not disclose using a weighted average, however, using an average is a common way of normalizing weighted values and is therefore obvious for the purposes of normalizing each weighted relationship.
Claim 22 is rejected under a similar rationale.
8. The medium of claim 7, wherein assigning and using weights to optimize familial signatures that represent different families in the image gallery of families further comprises individually adjusting each weight as needed to enhance an accuracy of the familial signatures to represent the different families.
Although Zhang and Cok do not disclose individually adjusting each weight as needed to enhance an accuracy of the familial signatures. However, enhancing an accuracy is a form of routine optimization and is within the skill of one of ordinary skill and has been held to be obvious. MPEP 2144.05.
Claim 23 is rejected under a similar rationale.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Ming Shui whose telephone number is (303)297-4247. The examiner can normally be reached on 7-5 Pacific Time, M-Th.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Greg 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.
/Ming Shui/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2663
Prosecution Insights