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 .
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 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.
In claims 5 and 14, “the digital profile” lacks proper antecedent basis.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-21 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 2, 3, 5, 11-13, 15-19, 22, 24-26 and 28 of U.S. Patent No. 12,340,581. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant application claim is broader in every aspect than the patent claim and is therefore an obvious variant thereof.
Claim 1 is met by patented claims 1, 11, 12 and 22.
Claim 2 is met by patented claim 5, 15.
Claim 3 is met by patented claim 24.
Claim 4 is met by patented claim 25.
Claim 5 is met by patented claim 18.
Claim 6 is met by patented claim 19.
Claim 7 is met by patented claims 1 and 12.
Claim 8 is met by patented claims 3 and 13.
Claim 9 is met by patented claims 2, 26 and 28.
Claim 10 is met by patented claims 1, 11, 12 and 22.
Claim 11 is met by patented claim 15.
Claim 12 is met by patented claim 24.
Claim 13 is met by patented claim 25.
Claim 14 is met by patented claim 18.
Claim 15 is met by patented claim 19.
Claim 16 is met by patented claims 1 and 12.
Claim 17 is met by patented claims 3 and 13.
Claim 18 is met by patented claims 2, 26 and 28.
Claim 19 is met by patented claim 16.
Claim 20 is met by patented claim 17.
Claim 21 is met by patented claim 18.
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.
Claim(s) 10-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yun (2011/0043628).
Regarding claim 10, Yun discloses a method for facially identifying a person
tracking an approach of the person in a photo zone towards an image collection device configured for depth detection and configured to capture in-motion facial data of the person, the tracking being conducted without a wearable device relying on RFID technology for identification (par. 29-30);
capturing, with the image collection device, in-motion facial data of the person as the person approaches the image collection device (note steps 630 and 640 Fig. 6);
forwarding, to a local processor, the in-motion facial data of the person while the person is moving through the photo zone (note step 650);
comparing, with the local processor, digital profile facial data of the person captured with a smartphone (note step 660)
identifying the person upon a successful match between the digital facial data and the in-motion facial data solely using facial recognition technology as a primary identification (note step 670 and 68); except
the above strikethrough limitations such as attending “a sporting event”, and “prior to commencement of the sporting event for event entry with the in-motion facial data of the person captured by the image collection device.”
First of all, using Yun in a sporting event is considered an intended use since the surveillance system in Yun can be used in any events, including sporting events.
Second of all, Yun discloses the database pre-stores the image data captured by cameras:
[0014] In some embodiments, input unit 110 may include an interface. The interface may allow an operator of surveillance system 100 to enter or input instructions. Some non-limiting types of instructions that may be entered via the interface may include instructions to receive a video or videos as input, instructions to display a previously input video, instructions to display one or more operational results, or instructions to otherwise operate surveillance system 100. Examples of suitable interfaces include but are not limited to a keypad, a keyboard, a mouse, a touch pad, a touch screen, a pointing device, a trackball, a light pen, a joystick, a speech recognition device, a stylus device, an eye and head movement tracker, a digitizing tablet, a barcode reader, or the like.
[0016] In some embodiments, controller 120 may include processors, microprocessors, digital signal processors (DSPs), microcontrollers, or the like. Controller 120 may include at least one embedded system memory to store and operate software applications, including an operating system, at least one application program, and other program modules. Controller 120 facilitates the running of a suitable operating system configured to manage and control the operations of surveillance system 100. These operations may include the input and output of data to and from related software application programs/modules. The operating system may provide an interface between the software application programs/modules being executed on controller 120 and, for example, the hardware components of surveillance system 100. Examples of suitable operating systems include Microsoft Windows Vista.RTM., Microsoft Windows.RTM., the Apple Macintosh.RTM. Operating System ("MacOS"), UNIX.RTM. operating systems, LINUX.RTM. operating systems, or the like.
[0019] Database 140 may store one or more multimedia content files, such as JPEG image files, MPEG video files or other data associated with the files. For example, database 140 may store still images of candidate objects together with related information such as candidate object descriptors, which provide identifying information related to the candidate objects. Controller 120 may upload at least one still image of each of the candidate objects stored on database 140 to memory 130 for execution. Database 140 may store the still images of the candidate objects using any of a variety of well-known data structures. For example, a candidate object descriptor of the candidate object may reference at least one still image (e.g., front face image) of a candidate object stored in the form of an array in database 140. Database 140 may be implemented on a flash memory cell, but can be implemented on any storage device known in the art, such as magnetic media, EEPROM, optical media, tape, soft or hard disk, or the like.
[0023] In a networked environment, part or all of the components of surveillance system 100 may be implemented as a distributed system through two or more devices, depending on the desired implementations. For example, database 140 and image processing modules 150 may be implemented on a server, and other modules/components of surveillance system 100 may be implemented at a mobile device or terminal. In this example, the mobile terminal may transmit the digital image data of the object being tracked to the server via the communication module, so that the server may retrieve a matched object from its database to transmit information on the matched object to the mobile terminal. Surveillance system 100 may operate in a networked environment using logical connections to one or more remote devices, such as a remote computer. The remote computer may be a personal computer, a server, hand-held or laptop devices, a router, a network PC, a peer device, or other common network nodes, and typically may include some or all of the components described in the present disclosure relative to surveillance system 100.
[0024] Surveillance system 100 of FIG. 1 is only one example of a suitable operating environment and is not intended to be limiting. Other well known computing systems, environments, and/or configurations that may be suitable for the image processing described in the present disclosure include, but are not limited to, personal computers, portable devices such as cellular phones, server computers, hand-held or laptop devices, multiprocessor systems, micro-processor based systems, programmable consumer electronics, network personal computers, mini-computers, mainframe computers, distributed computing environments that include any of the units or devices illustrated in FIG. 1, or the like.
Yun does not explicitly state the candidate object pictures are uploaded into the database 140 prior the commencement of the sporting event as claimed. However, in view of above descriptions in Yun, the candidate object pictures must be provided before the sporting event if the candidate objects need to be identified readily without any unmatchable issue. That is, without properly uploading the candidate object pictures, the live candidate objects captured by the surveillance cameras cannot be identified. Therefore, knowing this potential problem, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to upload the candidate object pictures into the database 140 before the commencement of an event, such as the sporting event as claimed, so that the faces of the people in the event could be identify readily without unmatchable issues.
Regarding claim 11, the sporting event in Yun could be a running race.
Regarding claim 12, Yun discloses accessing a local network of image collection devices with a means for accessing the network (note par. 22 and 23).
Regarding claim 13, Yun discloses the means for accessing the network at least includes the image collection device (note par. 22 and 23).
Regarding claim 14, Yun inherently discloses that permitting attendance of the person at the sporting event subsequent to establishment of a digital profile including the digital profile image (note rejection to claim 1 as set forth above).
Regarding claim 15, Yun inherently discloses that the platform provided is configured to store user image data with the person's explicit permission (note the 23, to access the server requires user name and password).
Regarding claims 16 and 17, Yun does not disclose that identifying the person using a secondary identification where the identification using facial recognition technology fails to identify the person and the secondary identification includes a non- biometric means for identification. However, Yun teaches that the feature part detection is not limited to facial feature (note par. 27 and 28). For instance, using name tags or number tags as identification feature of an object or person is well known in the art and hence the Official Notice is taken. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize other feature to identify the person, such as name or number tag, if facial recognition detection fails so that the person could be correctly identified.
Regarding claim 18, Yun discloses that the image collection device is a tablet computer (note par. 24).
Regarding claim 19, Yun discloses the identification includes using a point on an eye as a key data point (note par. 28).
Regarding claim 20, Yun discloses the comparing continues until either a successful match is achieved, or until there is no more facial data available to compare (note step 670 in Fig. 6).
Regarding claim 21, Yun discloses the digital facial data of the person is from a previously established user profile (note par. 19).
Claim(s) 1-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yun (2011/0043628) in view of Sukegawa et al. (2003/0039380).
Regarding claims 1-9, in addition of rejections to claims 10-21, Yun does not explicitly disclose that a platform configured to accept an entry registration with facial data from a smartphone to permit attendance of the person at the sporting event as claimed. However, the database 140 in Yun can be configured or used to store registration information and candidate object pictures can be uploaded from cellphones as aforementioned. Sukegawa, from the similar field of endeavor, teaches the use of cellphone to enter registration data (note par. 428 and 465-466). The use of cellphone as a registration means provides convenience to the user. Thus, attendance registration is needed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the registration scheme or platform of Sukegawa so that the registration process could be carried out on a cellphone conveniently.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL LEE whose telephone number 571-272-7349. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Thursday from 9:00 am to 6:00 pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, John Miller, can be reached on 571-272-7353. 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).
/MICHAEL LEE/ Primary Examiner,
Art Unit 2422