DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status.
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
2. Claims 1-20 filed on 01/16/2025 are pending and being examined. Claims 1 and 11 are independent form.
Priority
3. This application is a CON of 18/777,445 filed on 07/18/2024, 18/777,445 is a CON of 18/340,448 filed on 06/23/2023, now PAT 12167119 which has effective filling date on 01/27/2008.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
4. 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.
5. Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed inventions are directed to non-statutory subject matter (an abstract idea without significantly more).
5-1. Regarding independent claim 1, the claim recites an imaging device, comprising: at least one imager; a processor; and a memory storing instructions that, when read by the processor, cause the imaging device to:
[1] acquire, using the at least one imager, a plurality of images, each image of the plurality of images comprising a group of pixels corresponding to a face;
[2] track the face within the plurality of images;
[3] detect a transition in facial state of the face from eyes of the face open to eyes of the face closed within the plurality of images; and
[3] trigger a warning signal to a user based on the detected transition of facial state.
Step 1:
With regard to step (1), claim 1, is directed to an imaging device comprising at least one imager, a memory storing instructions, and a processor for executing the instructions. Claim 1 therefore is one of statutory categories of invention, i.e., a machine and/or manufacture.
Step 2A-1:
With regard to 2A-1, The elements recited in claim 1, as drafted, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, encompass a process(es) which is/are directed to organizing human activity, can be practically performed in human mind. Specifically wherein each of the track[ing] the face within the plurality of images in step [2], detect[ing] a transition in facial state of the face from eyes of the face open to eyes of the face closed within the plurality of images in step [3]; and trigger[ing] a warning signal to a user based on the detected transition of facial state in step [4] in the context of this claim, encompasses mental observation, evaluations, judgments, opinions, and/or activities that “can be performed in human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper”, therefore the limitation falls within the organizing human activity grouping and/or the mental processes grouping of abstract ideas. Claim 1 therefore recites an abstract idea. If a claim limitation is directed to organizing human activity, can be practically performed in human mind, or falls within mathematical concepts, then the claim recites an abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2).
Step 2A-2:
The 2019 PEG defines the phrase "integration into a practical application" to require an additional element or a combination of additional elements in the claim to apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception. In the instant case, the additional element of acquir[ing] a plurality of images in steps [1] under their broadest reasonable interpretation, is mere data gathering recited at a high level of generality and thus is insignificant extra-solution activity. Similarly, “using the at least one imager” are recited in step [1]. The “memory” and the “processor” are recited at high level of generality and amount to no more than mere instruction to apply the exception using generic cellphones. Therefore, the claim as a whole does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B:
As explained above, the electronic device comprising an image sensor, a depth sensor, and a controller, is at best the equivalent of merely adding the words “apply it” to the judicial exception. The “acquir[ing]” in step [1] as considered insignificant extra-solution activity. These conclusions should be reevaluated in Step 2B. The limitations are mere data gathering and/or output recited at high level of generality and amount to receiving (i.e., acquiring), accessing, or transmitting data over a network, which is well-understood, routine, conventional activity. See MPEP 2106.05(d), subsection II. The limitations remain insignificant extra-solution activity even upon reconsideration. Even when considered in combination, the additional elements present mere instructions to apply an exception and insignificant extra-solution activity, which cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim therefore is ineligible.
5-2. Regarding dependent claims 2-10, they are viewed individually, these additional elements are under its broadest reasonable interpretation, either covers performance of the limitation in the mind, performing a mathematical algorithm or extra solution activity for data gathering and do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. And, when the claims are viewed as a whole, they do not improve a technology by allowing the technology to perform a function that it previously was not capable of performing; and they do not provide any limitations beyond generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a broad technological environment (i.e., computer-based analysis of generic data). Hence, the claimed invention does not constitute significantly more than the abstract idea, so the claims are rejected under 35 USC § 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
5-3. Regarding independent claim 11, the claims recite a method which is analogous to apparatus claim 1, grounds of rejection analogous to those applied to claim 1 are applicable to claim 11. Furthermore, the claim is a method that does not recite any additional elements, and according to step 2A-2 does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not recite any additional elements that impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim recites an abstract idea.
Because the claim fails under (2A), the claim is further evaluated under (2B). The claim herein does not include any additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claims are not patent eligible.
5-4. Regarding dependent claims 12-20 they are dependent from claim 11 and viewed individually, these additional elements are under its broadest reasonable interpretation, either covers performance of the limitation in the mind, performing a mathematical algorithm or extra solution activity for data gathering and do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. And, when the claims are viewed as a whole, they do not improve a technology by allowing the technology to perform a function that it previously was not capable of performing; and they do not provide any limitations beyond generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a broad technological environment (i.e., computer-based analysis of generic data). Hence, the claimed invention does not constitute significantly more than the abstract idea, so the claims are rejected under 35 USC § 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
6. 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.
7. 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.
8. Claims 1-3, 6-7, 11-13, and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsugu et al (US 2007/0025722, hereinafter “Matsugu”).
Regarding claim 1, Matsugu discloses an imaging device (the image capturing apparatus and the method, see abstract), comprising: at least one imager; a processor; and a memory storing instructions that, when read by the processor, cause the imaging device (these hardware related elements are inherent in the apparatus in Matsugu; see fig.1) to:
acquire, using the at least one imager, a plurality of images (see S1 of fig.3 and para.70: “it [sequentially] acquires an image via the image input unit 2.”), each image of the plurality of images comprising a group of pixels corresponding to a face (the smile face image detection, see fig.18A-18D);
track the face within the plurality of images (see para.117: “the state change estimation unit 4 may predict a blink (state in which an object closes his eyes) during a time period of several frames before and after the best facial expression, and predict the timing (to be referred to as a non-blink time period hereinafter) when the object does not close his eyes.” In other words, the apparatus in Matsugu may track the facial expression in “several frames” and determine “the best facial expression” to predict “a blink” and “a non-blink time period”.);
detect a transition in facial state of the face from eyes of the face open to eyes of the face closed within the plurality of images (ibid, that is, the apparatus in Matsugu may predict the time period between a blink state and a non-blink state); and
trigger a warning signal to a user based on the detected transition of facial state (see para.183, lines 7-12: “When a smile image is captured and detected by an image analyzing circuit 69 in FIG. 18C, an image 634 used for analysis is displayed over a moving image at that time in FIG. 18D subsequent to FIG. 18C to notify the user by text information 633 or the like that the target image has been obtained. At this time, it is effective to blink the image 634 at predetermined intervals or surround it with a bold or colored frame because such display can call the user's attention.” It should be noticed that “smile” means “blink prevention” according to the disclosure in paragraph [0181]).
As explained above, although Matsugu does not disclose all the elements recited by claim 1 in one single embodiment, Matsugu discloses or suggests all the elements recited by claim 1 in the disclosed document. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention was made to combine the teachings of Matsugu as the invention claimed by claim 1. Suggestion or motivation for doing so would have been to “capture an image of an object and sequentially acquire image data associated with the image capturing”, “store model data associated with a first feature quantity calculated from a feature point of the object in a model image”, “calculate a second feature quantity from a feature point of the object in the acquired image data”, “estimate, on the basis of the second feature quantity and the model data, a timing when the object satisfies a predetermined condition”, and “store the image data corresponding to the estimated timing in an image data storage unit “as taught by Matsugu, cf., Par.23. Claim 1 therefore is unpatentable as being obvious over Matsugu.
Regarding claim 2, 12, Matsugu discloses, when read by the processor, further cause the imaging device to: detect a transition in pose of the face from looking straight ahead to looking down, and trigger the warning signal based on the detected transition in pose (see para.117, the last three lines: wherein “[t]he best facial expression time is estimated by processing as shown in FIG. 7. The best facial expression is defined in advance on the basis of conditions that the object opens his eyes, smiles, and faces the front.” In other words, the apparatus in Matsugu may guide the user keeping looking the front from looking down to capture the best facial expression image. Also see “the motion detection unit 39 of fig.6 by which “the orientation of a person’s face, ..., are detected.” See 39 of fig.6 and para.155).
Regarding claim 3, 13, Matsugu discloses, wherein the warning signal is an auditory signal (See “an audio notification (e.g., verbal notification, musical piece, alarm, ...,” in para.183).
Regarding claim 6, 16, Matsugu discloses, wherein the plurality of images comprises a stream of images in a plurality of intervals, and wherein to detect a transition in facial state, the instructions, when read by the processor, further cause the imaging device to: determine a facial expression state for each given interval of the plurality of intervals by accumulating facial expression state information over multiple images of the given interval; and classify a facial expression state for the interval based on the accumulated facial expression state information (see para.120: “When the time interval between frames is T msec, the state change estimation unit 4 estimates the time (best facial expression time) when an optimal facial expression is obtained from error vector data attained at discrete image input times (to be referred to as a frame time hereinafter) of every T msec.”).
Regarding claim 7, 17, Matsugu discloses, wherein the accumulated facial expression state information comprises a confidence parameter updated based on a classification of facial expression state in each image of a given interval (see para.101: “the state change estimation unit 4 estimates the time when the error vector sequence converges to the zero vector”).
Regarding claim 11, claim 11 is an inherent variation of claim 1, thus it is interpreted and rejected for the reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 1.
9. Claims 4-5 and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsugu in view of Bill (US 20060143647, hereinafter “Bill”).
Regarding claim 4, 15, Matsugu does not explicitly disclose, wherein the transition in facial state is associated with sleeping. However, in the same field of endeavor, Bill teaches a facial expression method which includes “sleep, bored, and/or relaxed moods” of a person by analyzing the orientations and motion of the eyes. See para.121. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention was made to incorporate the teachings of Bill into the teachings of Matsugu and include sleeping detection taught by Bill. Suggestion or motivation for doing so would have been to “to determine a mood for the user “as taught by Bill, cf., Abstract. Claim 4 therefore is unpatentable as being obvious over Matsugu in view of Bill.
Regarding claim 5, 15, the combination of Matsugu and Bill discloses the imaging device of claim 4, wherein the instructions, when read by the processor, further cause the imaging device to determine whether an orientation of the face is in plane, or out of plane (Matsugu, see para.117, the last three lines: wherein “[t]he best facial expression time is estimated by processing as shown in FIG. 7. The best facial expression is defined in advance on the basis of conditions that the object opens his eyes, smiles, and faces the front.”).
10. Claims 8-10 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsugu in view of Bhanu et al (“Face Recognition from Face Profile Using Dynamic Time Warping”, 2005, hereinafter “Bhanu”).
Regarding claim 8, 18, Matsugu does not explicitly disclose, further cause the imaging device to apply face recognition to the face, however, Bhanu teaches a face recognition method based on the features extracted from face profile. See figure 1 and abstract. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention was made to incorporate the teachings of Bhanu into the teachings of Matsugu and apply the face recognition method taught by Bhanu to the face taught by Matsugu. Suggestion or motivation for doing so would have been to “provide[s] a complementary structure of the face that is not seen in the frontal view“ as taught by Bhanu, see, Sec. 1, para.1, lines 1-3. Claim 8 therefore is unpatentable as being obvious over Matsugu in view of Bhanu.
Regarding claim 9, 19, the combination of Matsugu and Bhanu discloses the imaging device of claim 8, wherein the memory further stores a recognition profile associated with the face (Bhanu, see the “Model Database” in figure 1, where the “curvature of the profile” is stored).
Regarding claim 10, 20, the combination of Matsugu and Bhanu discloses the imaging device of claim 8, wherein the instructions, when read by the processor, further cause the imaging device to: obtain a user input requesting a new recognition profile; and generate the new recognition profile using the face and the applied face recognition (Bhanu, wherein the “curvature of the profile” is extracted from each of the training profile face images which can be included any new profile face image selected by the user. See Sec, 3, bullet Data).
Conclusion
11. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RUIPING LI whose telephone number is (571)270-3376. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30am--5:30pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, HENOK SHIFERAW can be reached on (571)272-4637. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit https://patentcenter.uspto.gov; https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center, and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/RUIPING LI/Primary Examiner, Ph.D., Art Unit 2676
Prosecution Insights