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
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 02/12/2025 was filed and is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
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.
Claims 1, 4, 7, 8 recites the limitation "the managed viewer". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. With context, the meaning relates to the “manage information on the viewer”, and will be interpreted as such, in the interest of compact prosecution.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
Claim(s) 1-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover mental process (concept performed in a human mind, including as observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion, organizing human activity and mathematical concepts and calculations). The claim(s) recite(s) a system, method, and device configured for image distribution. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the steps do not add meaningful limitations to be considered specifically applied to a particular technological problem to be solved .The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the steps of the claimed invention can be done mentally and no additional features in the claims would preclude them from being performed as such except for the generic computer elements at high level of generality.
According to the USPTO guidelines, a claim is directed to non-statutory subject matter if:
STEP 1: the claim does not fall within one of the four statutory categories of invention (process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter), or
STEP 2: the claim recites a judicial exception, e.g. an abstract idea, without reciting additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, as determined using the following analysis:
STEP 2A (PRONG 1): Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
STEP 2A (PRONG 2): Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
STEP 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
Using the two-step inquiry, it is clear that claims 1, 7, and 8 are directed to an abstract idea as shown below:
STEP 1: Do the claims fall within one of the statutory categories? YES. Claim(s) 1, 7, and 8 are directed to a method (i.e. process), a system, and a device.
STEP 2A (PRONG 1): Is the claim directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon or an abstract idea? YES, the claims are directed toward a mental process (i.e. abstract idea).
With regard to STEP 2A (PRONG 1), the guidelines provide three groupings of subject matter that are considered abstract ideas:
Mathematical concepts – mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations;
Certain methods of organizing human activity – fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions); and
Mental processes – concepts that are practicably performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion).
The method in claim 7 (and system in claim 1 and device in claim 8) comprise a mental process that can be practicably performed in the human mind (or generic computers or components configured to perform the method) and, therefore, an abstract idea.
Regarding Claim(s) 1, 7, and 8: the method recites the steps (functions) of:
manage information on the viewer permitted to view the captured image of the subject user (mental process including observation and evaluation, and can be done mentally in the human mind; the human managing the information can permit or block access to information; a non-exhaustive example to illustrate is video conferencing where an admin can block or permit user access to a virtual whiteboard or video camera control) OR (organizing of human activity);
register the viewer as the managed viewer in response to an action of the subject user to register the viewer; (mental process including observation and evaluation, and can be done mentally in the human mind; the person managing the information can allow a viewer to register; a non-exhaustive illustrative example happens when new user registration requires a human person from IT to approve new user registration) OR (organizing of human activity);
These limitations, as drafted, is a simple process that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations in the mind or by a human. The Examiner notes that under MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III), the courts consider a mental process (thinking) that “can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper" to be an abstract idea. CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1372, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1695 (Fed. Cir. 2011). As the Federal Circuit explained, "methods which can be performed mentally, or which are the equivalent of human mental work, are unpatentable abstract ideas the ‘basic tools of scientific and technological work’ that are open to all.’" 654 F.3d at 1371, 99 USPQ2d at 1694 (citing Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 175 USPQ 673 (1972)). See also Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs. Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 71, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1965 ("‘[M]ental processes[] and abstract intellectual concepts are not patentable, as they are the basic tools of scientific and technological work’" (quoting Benson, 409 U.S. at 67, 175 USPQ at 675)); Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 589, 198 USPQ 193, 197 (1978) (same).
STEP 2A (PRONG 2): Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? NO, the claims do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
With regard to STEP 2A (prong 2), whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, the guidelines provide the following exemplary considerations that are indicative that an additional element (or combination of elements) may have integrated the judicial exception into a practical application:
an additional element reflects an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field;
an additional element that applies or uses a judicial exception to affect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition;
an additional element implements a judicial exception with, or uses a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim;
an additional element effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; and
an additional element applies or uses the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
While the guidelines further state that the exemplary considerations are not an exhaustive list and that there may be other examples of integrating the exception into a practical application, the guidelines also list examples in which a judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application:
an additional element merely recites the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely includes instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea;
an additional element adds insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception; and
an additional element does no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
Claim(s) 1, 7, 8 does/do not recite any of the exemplary considerations that are indicative of an abstract idea having been integrated into a practical application. Claim(s) 1, 7, 8 recite(s) the further limitations of:
a first terminal device operated by a (generic computers or components configured to perform the method);
an information processing device to control distribution of a captured image of a subject user to the first terminal device (generic computers or components configured to perform the method; using the video conferencing example, an admin user may control who is allowed to see video of a subject user);
distribute the captured image of the subject user to the first terminal device of the managed viewer; (generic computers or components configured to perform the method; an illustrative example is a human transferring files to another human over a network);
Claim(s) 1, 7 recite(s) the further limitations of:
display the distributed captured image of the subject user (generic computers or components configured to perform the method);
These limitations are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general action or change being taken based on the results of the acquiring step) and amounts to mere post solution actions, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. Further, the claims are claimed generically and are operating in their ordinary capacity such that they do not use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
STEP 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? NO, the claims do not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
With regard to STEP 2B, whether the claims recite additional elements that provide significantly more than the recited judicial exception, the guidelines specify that the pre-guideline procedure is still in effect. Specifically, that examiners should continue to consider whether an additional element or combination of elements:
adds a specific limitation or combination of limitations that are not well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field, which is indicative that an inventive concept may be present; or
simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, which is indicative that an inventive concept may not be present.
Claim(s) 1, 7, 8 does/do not recite any additional elements that are not well-understood, routine or conventional. The use of a terminal device to displaying (only for claims 1 and 7 as claim 8 does not display), distributing, managing, registering, as claimed in Claim(s) 1, 7, 8 is a routine, well-understood and conventional process that is performed by computers.
Thus, since Claim(s) 1, 7, 8 is/are: (a) directed toward an abstract idea, (b) do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, and (c) do not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, it is clear that Claim(s) 1, 7, 8 is/are not eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C 101.
Regarding claim 2: the additional limitations do not integrate the mental process into practical application or add significantly more to the mental process. The limitation(s): receive, as the action of the subject user to register the viewer, an instruction to register the viewer from a second terminal device operated by the subject user (mental process including observation and evaluation, and can be done mentally in the human mind; an illustrative example includes admin B tells admin A to allow registration of user A) OR (organizing of human activity) OR (insignificant pre/post-solution extra activity of generating data; new user registration data) OR (generic computers or components configured to perform the method; using a computer to allow for registration of a user).
Regarding claim 3: the additional limitations do not integrate the mental process into practical application or add significantly more to the mental process. The limitation(s): as the action of the subject user to register the viewer, an instruction to register the viewer using a recording medium associated with the information on the viewer to be registered (mental process including observation and evaluation, and can be done mentally in the human mind; a non-exhaustive, illustrative example includes a security guard noticing a new ID, recording medium, on a new employee and registers them in their mind) OR (organizing of human activity) OR (insignificant pre/post-solution extra activity of generating data) OR (generic computers or components configured to perform the method; a non-exhaustive, illustrative example includes a security guard asking a new employee to register themselves into the computer system).
Regarding claim 4: the additional limitations do not integrate the mental process into practical application or add significantly more to the mental process. The limitation(s): as the managed viewer, the viewer whose request for registration of the viewer is approved by the subject user (mental process including observation and evaluation, and can be done mentally in the human mind; a non-exhaustive, illustrative example includes a security guard approves or receives approval from the boss for registration) OR (organizing of human activity) OR (insignificant pre/post-solution extra activity of generating data; the computer would store information) OR (generic computers or components configured to perform the method).
Regarding claim 5: the additional limitations do not integrate the mental process into practical application or add significantly more to the mental process. The limitation(s): request the viewer who has made the request for registration to take a photograph when the photograph of the viewer is not registered (insignificant pre/post-solution extra activity of generating data) OR (generic computers or components configured to perform the method; this is common for security that requires biometric images be taken).
Regarding claim 6: the additional limitations do not integrate the mental process into practical application or add significantly more to the mental process. The limitation(s): wherein the action of the subject user is an instruction from the subject user through manual input, voice input, or line-of-sight input to the second terminal device (mental process including observation and evaluation, and can be done mentally in the human mind; a human can pass a note to another human with instructions) OR (organizing of human activity) OR (insignificant pre/post-solution extra activity of generating data) OR (generic computers or components configured to perform the method).
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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 6-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Braeken (“Secure and Efficient Reactive Video Surveillance for Patient Monitoring”, 2016).
Regarding claims 1 and 7, Braeken teaches An image distribution system, comprising:
a first terminal device operated by a viewer (Braeken, Figure 1, bottom-area, which shows “Doctors/Nurses/Caretakes” [interpreted as “viewer”] holding non-exhaustive examples of phone and laptop with displays [interpreted as “first terminal device”]); and
an information processing device to control distribution (Braeken, see nearest image below, “Network architecture of a reactive video surveillance system in a medical environment” is being interpreted as involving “an information processing device to control distribution”) of a captured image of a subject user (Braeken, see nearest image below, “patient”) to the first terminal device (Braeken, Section 1, ¶2, reproduced below:
PNG
media_image1.png
716
1376
media_image1.png
Greyscale
. “the doctors with corresponding credentials can decrypt the video”),
the information processing device including circuitry configured to:
manage information on the viewer permitted (Braeken, see nearest image above, “doctor with the corresponding credentials”. “Credentials” is being interpreted as involving information that is managed.) to view the captured image of the subject user (Braeken, see nearest image above, “the doctors with the corresponding credentials can decrypt the video”. “The video” is being interpreted as involving the captured image of the subject user, or patient);
distribute the captured image of the subject user (Braeken, see nearest image above, “sends a notification about the newly-received encrypted video to the authorized persons (D) (e.g., doctors, nurses and caretakers).” “Notification” is being interpreted as involving “distribute”. “Video” is being interpreted as “captured image of the subject user”) to the first terminal device of the managed viewer (Braeken, Figure 1, which shows the Doctors/Nurses/Caretakers holding first terminal device and being the managed viewer); and
register the viewer as the managed viewer (Braeken, see nearest image above, “whereas the authentication allows the submission of requests limited to people known to the system”. “Limited to people known to the system” shows the Doctors/Nurses/Caretakers are registered as the managed viewer) in response to an action of the subject user (Braeken, see nearest image above, “the patient is responsible for invoking the video camera (VC) in closest proximity”. “Invoking the video camera” is being interpreted as involving “action of the subject user”.) to register the viewer (Braeken, pg 5, Section 4.2: “Then, the patient should establish the secure links with one or more doctors responsible for following up”. “Secure links with one or more doctors” is being interpreted as involving “register the viewing”),
the first terminal device including a display (Braeken, Figure 1, bottom which shows “Doctors/ Nurses/ Caretakers” having “first terminal device” that have displays) to display the distributed captured image of the subject user (Braeken, see nearest image above, “the doctors with the corresponding credentials can decrypt the video”).
Regarding claim 2, Braeken teaches The image distribution system according to claim 1,
wherein the circuitry is configured to receive, as the action of the subject user to register the viewer (Braeken, pg 5, Section 4.2: “Then, the patient should establish the secure links with one or more doctors responsible for following up”. The patient, subject user, establishing the secure links is being interpreted to involve registering the viewer), an instruction to register the viewer (Braeken, pg 5, Section 4.2: “Then, the patient should establish the secure links with one or more doctors responsible for following up”. “Establish the secure links with one or more doctors” is being interpreted as involving “instruction to register the viewer”, or the doctor.) from a second terminal device operated by the subject user (Braeken, pg 6, line 1: “the system requires the input of the identity and password of the patient”. Which shows a second terminal device operated by the subject user.).
Regarding claim 3, Braeken teaches The image distribution system according to claim 1,
wherein the circuitry is configured to receive, as the action of the subject user to register the viewer (Braeken, pg 5, Section 4.2: “Then, the patient should establish the secure links with one or more doctors responsible for following up”. “Establish” is being interpreted as involving “action of the subject user”. “Secure links with one or more doctors” is being interpreted as involving “register the viewer”), an instruction to register the viewer using a recording medium (Braeken, pg 5, Section 4.1, “The KDC contains one master key x and shares the following secret information with the different entities in the system, by means of physical contact or a secured channel.” “Physical contact or a secured channel” is being interpreted as involving a “recording medium”) associated with the information on the viewer to be registered (Braeken, pg 5, Section 4.2: “Then, the patient should establish the secure links with one or more doctors responsible for following up”. “Establish” is being interpreted as involving “action of the subject user”. “Secure links with one or more doctors” is being interpreted as involving “information on the viewer to be registered”).
Regarding claim 4, Braeken teaches The image distribution system according to claim 1,
wherein the circuitry is configured to register (Braeken, pg 5, Section 4.2: “Then, the patient should establish the secure links with one or more doctors responsible for following up”. “Establish the secure links” is being interpreted as involving “register”), as the managed viewer (Braeken, pg 5, Section 4.2, “one or more doctors”), the viewer whose request for registration of the viewer is approved by the subject user (Braeken, pg 5, Section 4.2: “Then, the patient should establish the secure links with one or more doctors responsible for following up”. Which shows the subject user, patient, approved the registration of the viewer, the doctor. Otherwise, the doctor would not be given access to the data).
Regarding claim 6, Braeken teaches The image distribution system according to claim 2,
wherein the action of the subject user is an instruction from the subject user through manual input (Braeken, pg 6, line 1: “the system requires the input of the identity and password of the patient”), voice input, or line-of-sight input to the second terminal device (Braeken, pg 6, line 1: “the system requires the input of the identity and password of the patient”. Which is being interpreted as involving “second terminal device”).
Claim 8 is rejected using the same rationale as applied to claim 1 discussed above. Examiner notes claim 8 is broader than claim 1 and 7 as claim 8 does not have the displaying limitation, but the remaining limitations are in claims 1 and 7.
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) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Braeken, in view of Mason (“An Investigation of Biometric Authentication in the Healthcare Environment”, 2020).
Regarding claim 5, Braeken teaches The image distribution system according to claim 4,
However, Braeken does not appear to explicitly teach take a photograph when the photograph of the viewer is not registered.
Pertaining to the same field of endeavor, Mason teaches
wherein the circuitry is configured to request the viewer who has made the request for registration (Mason, pg 13, Section 7, ¶2: “Our biometric system presents a novel approach in identifying patients, both new and registered, in healthcare information systems.” “New” is being interpreted as involving registration)
to take a photograph when the photograph of the viewer is not registered (Mason, pg 13, Section 7, ¶2: “to test the accuracy of identifying the patient for each periocular biometric image captured on a smartphone.” Which is being interpreted as a non-exhaustive example of “photograph of the viewer”).
Braeken and Mason are considered to be analogous art because they are directed to authentication related to the medical field. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method and system for authentication related to the medical field (as taught by Braeken) to take a photograph when the photograph of the viewer is not registered (as taught by Mason) because the combination provides an improvement to secured authentication (Mason, Abstract). Further, it would be obvious to try registration of a new or unregistered user; PHOSITA would experience this in the natural course of experimentation with the method of authentication and registration.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Crandall et al (US 2004/0059752 A1, 2002) discloses user identification and authentication to allow for video access to a hand-held device.
Firmanda et al (“Implementation of Illumination Invariant Face Recognition for Accessing User Record in Healthcare Kiosk”, 2020) discloses new user registration and authentication with face image request.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHNNY B DUONG whose telephone number is (571)272-1358. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 10a-9p (ET).
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, Matthew Bella can be reached at (571)272-7778. 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.
/J.B.D./Examiner, Art Unit 2667 /MATTHEW C BELLA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2667
Prosecution Insights