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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d).
Information Disclosure Statement
The four information disclosure statements (IDS) filed on April 7, 2025, August 18, 2025, August 21, 2025, and January 19, 2026, have been considered by the examiner.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
In paragraph [0003], ‘JP2004-152733 A’ is listed as prior art for the instant application. However, this appears to be a typo. ‘JP2004-152733 A’ is directed towards a heater and appears unrelated to the instant application. The Examiner suggests rewriting paragraph [0003] to state “Patent Literature 3: JP2009-152733 A”, which appears to be correct application number, and is listed in the first mailed IDS.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
a ‘person detection unit’ in claim 1,
a ‘person identification information acquisition unit’ in claim 1,
a ‘ image processing unit’ in Claim 1,
a ‘ recording control unit’ in Claim 1,
a ‘searched person information acquisition unit’ in Claim 1,
a ‘search unit’ in Claims 1, 2, and 3,
a ‘ presentation unit’ in Claim 1, and
a ‘concealment unit’ in Claim 4.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Each unit is being interpreted as a software implemented by a processor. Support for this interpretation can be found in paragraph [0018] of the instant specification.
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.
Claim 4 is 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 term “difficult” in Claim 4 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “difficult” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The instant specification states that the concealment unit may use encryption and hash functions (see paragraph [0051]) to conceal the identification information, but the specification fails to define ‘difficult’.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
(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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by Takenaka (US Pub No 20040081338), hereinafter Takenaka.
As to Claim 1, Takenaka teaches a person search apparatus (see Fig. 1, face identification device 2) comprising:
a person detection unit (see Fig. 1, computer 3) that detects a person shown in a captured image (see paragraph [0027], “The computer 3 includes detection means for detecting face images from images of people videotaped by the surveillance cameras 1”);
a person identification information acquisition unit (see Fig. 1, computer 3) that acquires person identification information adapted to identify each person detected by the person detection unit (see paragraph [0028], “After the face detection, featuring points such as eyes, nose, mouth, and ears are detected from the face image (Step S3), and the amount of feature about the shape and position of each detected featuring point is extracted”, wherein the ‘featuring points’ are interpreted as the identification information. The instant specification states that identification information may include feature information (see paragraph [0023], “The person identification information of the first embodiment includes an image ID, a position in the image, and feature information…The feature information is information indicating a feature of the appearance of the targeted person shown in the captured image and includes information indicating a facial feature of the targeted person. For example, the feature information includes information indicating a feature such as the shape of the outline of the face of the targeted person and the arrangement of facial parts”),
an image processing unit (see Fig. 1, computer 3) that executes a predetermined image process on the captured image so that the person shown in the captured image is not identified (see paragraph [0031], “Therefore, the mosaic process is applied to the detected face image portion (Step S16). FIG. 5 shows an example of images to which the mosaic process has been applied: the mosaic process 12 is applied to each face image of the persons 10B to 10F except the specific person so as to abstract their faces unrecognizably”);
a recording control unit (see Fig. 1, storage device 5) that records the image subjected to the predetermined image process and the person identification information corresponding to the image (see paragraph [0035], “When all the detected faces have been checked (S19: YES), the image to which the procedure of Steps S16 and S17 has been applied is recorded to the storage device 5 (Step S20)”);
a searched person information acquisition unit (see Fig. 1, storage device 5) that acquires searched person information that is information related to a person to be searched (see paragraph [0027], “and reference numeral 5 is a storage device which previously stores the face image data of a specific person (e.g., a suspect on the wanted list)”, wherein the ‘suspect’ is interpreted as the person to be searched);
a search unit (see Fig. 1, computer 3) that searches for a person indicated by the searched person information from persons indicated by the person identification information recorded in advance (see paragraph [0027]., “The computer 3 includes…determination means for determining the presence or absence of a match between a detected face image and the face image stored in the storage device 5 by comparing them”);
and a presentation unit (see Fig. 1, identification results output device 4) that presents information indicating that the person indicated by the searched person information is shown when the person indicated by the searched person information is extracted from the persons indicated by the person identification information (see paragraph [0027], “The identification results output device 4 is composed of a display monitor for displaying identification results, a printer for printing identification results, and other output devices”, and see paragraph [0033], “After the process in Step S 17, the identification results output device 4 displays, with a warning, the images shown in FIG. 5 including the image of the specific person 10A”).
As to Claim 2, Takenaka teaches wherein the person identification information adapted to identify each person includes facial feature information on each person unit (see paragraph [0028], “After the face detection, featuring points such as eyes, nose, mouth, and ears are detected from the face image (Step S3), and the amount of feature about the shape and position of each detected featuring point is extracted”),
and wherein the search unit searches for the person indicated by the searched person information based on the facial feature information indicated by the person identification information recorded in advance (see paragraph [0030], “In the comparison, featuring points (eyes, nose, mouth, and the like) are detected from the detected face image (Step S31), and the amount of feature about the shape and position of each detected featuring point is extracted (Step S32). The extracted amount of feature is compared with the amount of feature of the face registered in the storage device 5 (Step S33). Based on the comparison results, it is determined whether these face images match with each other or not at Step S15 shown in FIG. 3”).
As to Claim 5, Takenaka teaches a person search method (see paragraph [0011], “The face identification method of the present invention”) comprising:
detecting a person shown in a captured image (see paragraph [0027], “The computer 3 includes detection means for detecting face images from images of people videotaped by the surveillance cameras 1”);
acquiring person identification information adapted to identify each person detected in the detecting (see paragraph [0028], “After the face detection, featuring points such as eyes, nose, mouth, and ears are detected from the face image (Step S3), and the amount of feature about the shape and position of each detected featuring point is extracted”);
executing a predetermined image process on the captured image so that the person shown in the captured image is not identified (see paragraph [0031], “Therefore, the mosaic process is applied to the detected face image portion (Step S16). FIG. 5 shows an example of images to which the mosaic process has been applied: the mosaic process 12 is applied to each face image of the persons 10B to 10F except the specific person so as to abstract their faces unrecognizably”);
recording the image subjected to the predetermined image process and the person identification information corresponding to the image (see paragraph [0035], “When all the detected faces have been checked (S19: YES), the image to which the procedure of Steps S16 and S17 has been applied is recorded to the storage device 5 (Step S20)”);
acquiring searched person information that is information related to a person to be searched; searching for a person indicated by the searched person information from persons indicated by the person identification information recorded in advance (see paragraph [0027], “and reference numeral 5 is a storage device which previously stores the face image data of a specific person (e.g., a suspect on the wanted list)”);
and presenting information indicating that the person indicated by the searched person information is shown when the person indicated by the searched person information is extracted from the persons indicated by the person identification information (see paragraph [0030], “In the comparison, featuring points (eyes, nose, mouth, and the like) are detected from the detected face image (Step S31), and the amount of feature about the shape and position of each detected featuring point is extracted (Step S32). The extracted amount of feature is compared with the amount of feature of the face registered in the storage device 5 (Step S33). Based on the comparison results, it is determined whether these face images match with each other or not at Step S15 shown in FIG. 3”).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 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 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takenaka (US Pub No 20040081338), hereinafter Takenaka, in view of Kawase (US Pub No 20210110625), hereinafter Kawase.
As to Claim 3, Takenaka fails to teach that the person identification information adapted to identify each person includes ID information on each person, and wherein the search unit searches for the person indicated by the searched person information based on the ID information indicated by the person identification information recorded in advance.
However, in an analogous art, Kawase teaches an authentication system (see paragraph [0047], “According to an aspect of the present invention, there is provided a facial authentication system including”) which comprises
obtaining person identification information adapted to identify each person includes ID information on each person (see paragraph [0094], “According to one of embodiments of the present invention, the acquisition part is configured to acquire a facial feature value corresponding to an identifier”)
and wherein the search unit searches for the person indicated by the searched person information based on the ID information indicated by the person identification information recorded in advance (see paragraph [0101], “a facial authentication apparatus…searches a database (not shown) using each ID as a key, and acquires from the database a facial feature value registered in advance in association with each ID”).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the ID information taught by Kawase with the person search apparatus taught by Takenaka. The motivation for doing so would be to use the ID information to improve the accuracy in facial accuracy. Kawase teaches in paragraph [0118], “According to the first example embodiment of the present invention, the number of facial authentication targets can be narrowed down using a wireless tag such as an RFID…Further, accuracy in facial authentication can be improved by narrowing down the number of authentication targets.” Thus, it would have been obvious to combine the ID information taught by Kawase with the teachings of Takenaka in order to obtain the invention as claimed in Claim 3.
As to Claim 4, Takenaka fails to teach a concealment unit that processes the person identification information to make it difficult for a third party to decipher the person identification information.
However, Kawase teaches a concealment unit (see paragraph [0056], “According to an aspect of the present invention, there are provided a program causing a computer to execute processing comprising”),
that processes the person identification information to make it difficult for a third party to decipher the person identification information (see paragraph [0125], “The data server 40 may be configured to encrypt a facial feature value corresponding to the ID for transmission to the gate apparatus 100, and also encrypt and store facial feature values”, wherein ‘encryption’ is a common method known in the art to make it difficult for a third party to decipher information).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the encryption and identification information taught by Kawase with the person search apparatus taught by Kawase. The motivation for doing so would be to increase security when data is being transmitted. Kawase teaches in paragraph [0125], “The search request (query) may include identification information and location information, etc., of the gate apparatus 100 which a sending source of the request. The data server 40 may be configured to encrypt a facial feature value corresponding to the ID for transmission to the gate apparatus 100, and also encrypt and store facial feature values”). Thus, it would have been obvious to combine the encryption and ID information taught by Kawase with the teachings of Takenaka in order to obtain the invention as claimed in Claim 4.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Yoo et al. (US Pub No 20140023248), teaches a method which comprises masking facial data in video data in order to protect user privacy.
Yamazaki et al. (US Pub No 20200272654) teaches a method for searching persons which comprises obtaining facial feature data and comparing facial feature data within a database.
Wang (CN Pub No 110008676) teaches a method of authentication which comprises obtaining ID information corresponding to a person.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SOUMYA THOMAS whose telephone number is (571)272-8639. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5:00.
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, Jennifer Mehmood can be reached at (571) 272-2976. 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. Visit 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.
/S.T./Examiner, Art Unit 2664
/CHARLOTTE M BAKER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2664
Prosecution Insights