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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-13 are pending in this application.
Drawings
The drawings received on 2/26/2025 are accepted by examination purposes.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 2/26/2025 and 8/7/2025 are 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 § 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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 9 and 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Toney et al. (US-2013/0002840).
As to Claim 1, Toney teaches ‘An information processing apparatus comprising: at least one memory storing instructions; and at least one processor, that upon execution of the stored instructions, is configured to operate as: an obtaining unit that obtains person information that is identification information assigned to each person in a group of people included in a captured image [Fig 4, par 0031-0032, 0041-0042, 0054, 0058 – apparatus includes at least one processor and at least one memory, where a media event occurs and each party (i.e., each person in a group of people) is identified with an identifier to determine authorization for consent to be recorded]; a communication unit that communicates with a server storing information identifying a consenting person that consents to use of a biometric identifier [Figs 1, 5, par 0032, 0034, 0058-0059 – communicating with an authorization repository (i.e., server) over a network using the identifier corresponding to the identified party to access authorization data including consent data whether party consents to being recorded with image and/or voice ]; a determination unit that determines whether the person included in the captured that corresponds to the obtained person information is a person who consents to the use of the biometric identifier, based on the received consenting person information from the server; and a processing unit that executes processing which uses the biometric identifier of the person in accordance with a consent determination by the determination unit [par 0064 – if the authorization data for the particular identified party indicates that the party consents to the recording of the particular media event, then enables recording the media event of the consenting identified party]’.
Further, in regards to claim 12 the information processing apparatus of claim 1 performs the information processing method of claim 12.
Further, in regards to claim 13 the information processing method of claim 12 is fully embodied on the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of claim 13.
As to Claim 2, Toney teaches ‘wherein the communication unit receives consenting person information including identification information of the consenting person from the server, and the determination unit determines that the person consents to the use of the biometric identifier when the identification information included in the consenting person information received from the server includes the obtained identification information [Fig 5, par 0058-0059, 0064 – communicating with an authorization repository over a network using the identifier corresponding to the identified party to access authorization data including consent data whether party consents to being recorded with image and/or voice and determines if the authorization data for the particular identified party indicates that the party consents to the recording of the particular media event]’.
As to Claim 3, Toney teaches ‘wherein the communication unit: sends a query including the obtained identification information to the server; and receives, as a response to the query, a response indicating whether the person corresponding to the identification information consents to the use of the biometric identifier [Fig 5, par 0058-0059, 0064 – communicating with an authorization repository over a network using the identifier corresponding to the identified party to access authorization data including consent data whether party consents to being recorded with image and/or voice and receiving if authorization data for the particular identified party indicates that the party consents to recording of the particular media event]’.
As to Claim 4, Toney teaches ‘wherein the person information is a feature amount of the person extracted from the captured image [par 0075 – the authorization data of the party identified includes a party’s image and/or voice]’.
As to Claim 9, Toney teaches ‘wherein the processing unit executes at least one of the following as processing that uses the biometric identifier of the person: outputting the biometric identifier to another apparatus; storing the biometric identifier in a storage unit; executing additional learning using the biometric identifier; and identifying a person using the biometric identifier [par 0042, 0053 – images and/or sounds that are recorded may be stored for future viewings and identifying the party determines whether the party has previously indicated consent to being recorded and provide for the recording to occur if such consent is in place]’.
As to Claim 11, Toney teaches ‘wherein the determination unit deletes the feature amount of the person in a case where a result of the determination indicates no consent [par 0075 – non-consenting party’s image and/or voice may be obscured]’.
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.
Claim(s) 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Toney et al. in view of Degioanni et al. (US-2022/0067182).
As to Claim 5, Toney teaches all the claimed elements/features as recited in dependent claim 4 and independent claim 1. Toney does not disclose expressly ‘wherein the communication unit receives consenting person information including a feature amount of the consenting person from the server, and the determination unit determines whether the person consents to the use of the biometric identifier by performing verification processing based on a feature amount included in the received consenting person information from the server and the obtained feature amount’.
Degioanni in the proposed combination teaches ‘wherein the communication unit receives consenting person information including a feature amount of the consenting person from the server, and the determination unit determines whether the person consents to the use of the biometric identifier by performing verification processing based on a feature amount included in the received consenting person information from the server and the obtained feature amount [par 0027-0028, 0037-0041 – image usage controller controls and transforms the usage of the input image (e.g., facial images) in accordance with the data usage policy and/or conditions for which the user may have provided his or her consent based on personal data shared with web service over network for purposes of verifying face matching characteristics]’.
Toney and Degioanni are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor, namely information processing systems. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to include an image usage controller for purposes of consent, as taught by Degioanni. The motivation for doing so would have been to controlling malicious use or usage for a purpose not consented by a user becomes impractical or technically non-feasible while maintaining some original characteristics of personal data. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Degioanni with Toney to obtain the invention as specified in claim 5.
As to Claim 6, Degioanni in the proposed combination teaches ‘wherein execution of the stored instructions further configures the at least one processor to operate as: a reduction unit that obtains reduced information by reducing an amount of data of the obtained feature amount, wherein the communication unit: sends a query including the reduced information obtained by the reduction unit to the server; and receives, as a response to the query from the server, a response indicating whether the person corresponding to the obtained feature amount consents to the use of the biometric identifier [par 0027-0028, 0038-0041 – image usage controller controls the usage and transforms the input image (e.g., facial images) representing a new configuration or version of the input image in accordance with the data usage policy and/or conditions for which the user may have provided his or her consent based on personal data shared and stored with/in web service where face matching characteristics present are preserved and facial recognition characteristics are anonymized]’.
Toney and Degioanni are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor, namely information processing systems. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to include an image usage controller for purposes of consent, as taught by Degioanni. The motivation for doing so would have been to controlling malicious use or usage for a purpose not consented by a user becomes impractical or technically non-feasible while maintaining some original characteristics of personal data. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Degioanni with Toney to obtain the invention as specified in claim 6.
As to Claim 7, Degioanni in the proposed combination teaches ‘wherein the reduction unit obtains the reduced information by one or both of performing a predetermined operation on a specific dimension of the feature amount indicated by a vector, and removing a specific dimension from the feature amount [par 0027-0028, 0038-0041 – transforming the input image (e.g., facial images) representing a new configuration or version of the input image where face matching characteristics present are preserved and facial recognition characteristics are anonymized eventually reducing an accuracy of performing face recognition]’.
Toney and Degioanni are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor, namely information processing systems. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to include an image usage controller that transforms input image for purposes of consent, as taught by Degioanni. The motivation for doing so would have been to controlling malicious use or usage for a purpose not consented by a user becomes impractical or technically non-feasible while maintaining some original characteristics of personal data. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Degioanni with Toney to obtain the invention as specified in claim 7.
Claim(s) 8 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Toney et al. in view of Nanda et al. (US-2023/0161854).
As to Claim 8, Toney teaches all the claimed elements/features as recited in independent claim 1. Toney does not disclose expressly ‘wherein the biometric identifier is a feature amount extracted from one or more of a face, a fingerprint, and an iris pattern’.
Nanda in the proposed combination teaches ‘wherein the biometric identifier is a feature amount extracted from one or more of a face, a fingerprint, and an iris pattern [par 0030, 0036 – one or more sensors includes a combination of an image capturing sensor, a biometric capturing sensor, a fingerprint sensor, an iris recognition sensor]’.
Toney and Nanda are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor, namely information processing systems. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to include a combination of sensors for storing consent biometric features, as taught by Nanda. The motivation for doing so would have been to facilitating a fool-proof biometric authentication of a user based on machine learning architecture. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Nanda with Toney to obtain the invention as specified in claim 8.
As to Claim 10, Nanda in the proposed combination teaches ‘wherein execution of the stored instructions further configures the at least one processor to operate as: an extracting unit that extracts a biometric identifier of the person when a determined result indicates consent to use biometric information [par 0045 – storing consent of the user to store biometric features of the user and upon receipt of the consent storing the biometric features of the user]’.
Toney and Nanda are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor, namely information processing systems. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to include a combination of sensors for storing consent biometric features, as taught by Nanda. The motivation for doing so would have been to facilitating a fool-proof biometric authentication of a user based on machine learning architecture. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Nanda with Toney to obtain the invention as specified in claim 10.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record
a. US Publication No. 2013/0002840
b. US Publication No. 2022/0067182
c. US Publication No. 2023/0161854
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
d. US Patent No. 11,527,107
e. US Patent No. 9,786,030
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MIYA J CATO whose telephone number is (571)270-3954. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 830-530.
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, Akwasi Sarpong can be reached at 571.270.3438. 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.
/MIYA J CATO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2681
Prosecution Insights