19104720
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 2/19/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 6, 9-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sasaki et. al. (International Patent Application Publication WO 2019/017440 A1) in view of Ueno (Japanese Patent Application JP 2016018406 A).
Regarding claim 1, Sasaki et. al. discloses an information processing system comprising: at least one memory that is configured to store instructions; and at least one processor that is configured to execute the instructions to: associate and register biometric identification information capable of identifying a living body (Sasaki et. al. [0041]: a reader device 37 at an entrance gate 7 in fig. 3 transmits information about a tag ID read from an RFID tag 35 held by a worker who is to enter, information about time at which the tag ID information is read, and information about a reader ID of the reader device 37 together to a host computer 81, and the statement indicating that a biometric information reading device 38 at the entrance gate 7 reads biometric information of the worker who is going to enter and transmits the biometric information to the host computer 81), biometric information on a predetermined part of the living body (Sasaki et. al. [0045]: the biological information is unique information of a living body, and is information capable of identifying a person. In Exemplary Embodiment 1, a vein of the index finger is used as the biological information, but a vein of the finger of the other hand, a vein of the palm, a retina, a voiceprint, or the like may be used.), and wearing item identification information presented by a wearing item worn by the living body (Sasaki et. al. [0042]: the tag ID authentication unit 91 authenticates the transmitted tag ID information by comparing the tag ID information with the personal information for authentication stored in the authentication database 93); acquire a captured image obtained by capturing the living body wearing the wearing item (Sasaki et. al. [0015]: a camera that captures an image of the area; and a recording unit that records an image captured by the camera that captures an image of the identified position of the user. In addition, since the captured image of the camera configured to capture the identified position of the user is recorded, the captured image can be viewed later, and the behavior of the operator can be confirmed.); verify the living body by using the wearing item identification information included in the captured image (Sasaki et. al. [0042]: a tag ID authentication unit); and determine whether or not a body other than the living body is impersonating the living body, by using an image of the predetermined part of the living body included in the captured image, in response to a predetermined condition being satisfied (Sasaki et. al. [0023]: the biometric information authentication unit 95 serving as an authentication unit authenticates the sent biometric information by comparing the biometric information with biometric information associated with the tag ID information stored in the authentication database 93, [0046]: and when a user enters a controlled area, the biometric information of the user is authenticated by being compared with the pre-recorded biometric information having the entry authority, thereby preventing the spooking of a user by another person.).
However, Sasaki et. al. fails to disclose the wearing item identification information being capturable in an image.
Ueno teaches disclose the wearing item identification information being capturable in an image (Ueno [0027]: the code authentication for authenticating a code and the person authentication for recognizing that a condition related to a person has been satisfied are performed on the basis of an image obtained by capturing the image of the code and the person, the code is printed on, for example, a tag attached to the chest of the person, or is printed on a tag hung from a strap held by the person, [0040]: and the person authentication information is information with which a person can be authenticated, such as at least one feature amount of the face of the person and information (iris information, fingerprint information, vein information, etc.) for use in biometric authentication, [0041]).
This is important to the claimed invention because the authentication identification is data that must be stored in some way. Thus, it would have been obvious for one skilled in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention of Sasaki et. al. by using the code in Ueno instead of the tag ID in Sasaki et. al., and capturing an image of a person as in Ueno instead of using the biometric information reading device 38 of Sasaki et. al., thereby achieving a configuration similar to the solution of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 9, which is an information processing method, the rejection analysis of claim 1 is incorporated herein.
Regarding claim 10, which is a non-transitory recording medium on which a computer program that allows a computer to execute an information processing method is recorded, the information processing method, the rejection analysis of claim 1 is incorporated herein.
Regarding claim 6, Sasaki et. al. further discloses the information processing system according to claim 1, wherein the at least one processor is configured to execute the instructions to determine whether or not the living body is a target of spoofing determination (Sasaki et. al. [0046]: when a user enters a controlled area, the biometric information of the user is authenticated by being compared with the pre-recorded biometric information having the entry authority, thereby preventing the spoofing of a user by another person.).
Claim(s) 2-5, 7-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sasaki et. al. (International Patent Application Publication WO 2019/017440 A1) in view of Ueno (Japanese Patent Application JP 2016018406 A) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Norimatsu (International Patent Publication Application WO 2020138349 A1).
Regarding claim 2, Sasaki et. al. and Ueno disclose the information processing system according to claim 1. However, Sasaki et. al. and Ueno fail to disclose wherein the at least one processor is configured to execute the instructions to: acquire the captured image from each of a plurality of imaging units, and determine whether or not spoofing determination is to be performed by using the captured image captured by a corresponding imaging unit, for each of the plurality of imaging units.
Norimatsu teaches wherein the at least one processor is configured to execute the instructions to: acquire the captured image from each of a plurality of imaging units, and determine whether or not spoofing determination is to be performed by using the captured image captured by a corresponding imaging unit, for each of the plurality of imaging units (Norimatsu pg. 4, para. 2: Fig 1, a plurality of surveillance cameras are installed at various locations inside the airport, pg.5 para. 3-5: CPU controls acquisition of a face image, which is biometric information of the user U, by camera 114. Further, the CPU controls acquisition of a fingerprint image which is biometric information of the user U by the fingerprint scanner. The CPU 102 also functions as a spoofing determination unit that determines whether or not the user U is impersonating based on the acquisition status of the biometric information of the user U. pg. 6, para. 2: If it is determined that spoofing is being performed, the CPU 102 can execute alert processing.).
This is important to the claimed invention because the captured image serves as a first step towards further processing for the spoofing determination. This improves efficiency by filtering the images that are captured that do not indicate the spoofing has occurred. Thus, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the teachings of Sasaki et. al., Ueno, and Norimatsu so that the captured image moves the spoofing determination forward.
Regarding claim 3, Norimatsu further discloses the information processing system according to claim 2, wherein each of the plurality of imaging units includes a notification unit that notifies the living body whether or not the captured image captured by the corresponding imaging unit is used for the spoofing determination, independently of determination (Norimatsu pg. 6, para. 2: If it is determined that spoofing is being performed, the CPU 102 can execute alert processing.).
Regarding claim 4, Norimatsu further discloses the information processing system according to claim 2, wherein the at least one processor is configured to execute the instructions to dynamically change determination of whether or not the spoofing determination is to be performed by using the captured image captured by the imaging unit (Norimatsu pg. 5, para. 7: Further, the CPU 102 can analyze the video of the remote examination terminal 10 and its surroundings captured by the surveillance 70 and determine whether or not the user U is based on the analysis result of the video. For impersonation, the CPU102 analyzes the information acquisition status of the user U by analyzing the of the remote examination terminal 10 and its surroundings photographed by the surveillance 70 during photographing by the 114 and reading by the fingerprint scanner 116. can do. Based on the analysis result of the , the CPU 102 detects, for example, a plurality of persons in front of the remote examination terminal 10, or detects an unnatural behavior of the user U who uses the remote examination terminal 10, It can be determined that the user U is impersonating.).
Regarding claim 5, Sasaki et. al. further discloses the information processing system according to claim 2, wherein the at least one processor is configured to execute the instructions to determine that the spoofing determination is to be performed by using the captured image captured by the imaging unit that captures a location with a high possibility of occurrence of spoofing (Sasaki et. al. [0013]: when a user enters the controlled area, the biometric information of the user is authenticated by matching the biometric information having entry privileges recorded in advance, and thus spoofing of the user can be prevented. [0015]: A camera that captures an image of the area; and a recording unit that records an image captured by the camera that captures an image of the identified position of the user. According to such a configuration, a situation in the controlled area can be known in more detail by viewing an image captured by the camera. In addition, since the captured image of the camera configured to capture the identified position of the user is recorded, the captured image can be viewed later, and the behavior of the operator can be confirmed. [0018]: the number of users detected from the captured image and the number of radio tags detected by the reader device in the captured region are compared to each other, making it possible to detect that there is a user who does not possess a radio tag. This prevents fraudulent activity by removing the radio tag within the controlled area.)).
Regarding claim 7, Norimatsu further discloses the information processing system according to claim 6, wherein the at least one processor is configured to execute the instructions to determine that the living body is a target of the spoofing determination, in a case where a predetermined time elapses after the living body is determined (Norimatsu pg. 27, para. 10-11, pg. 28, para.1-2: the CPU 202 can determine whether or not the remote examination is a target of the remote examination based on the time from when the user information is acquired by the remote examination terminal 10 to the boarding time.). See claim 2 for obvious and motivation statements.
Regarding claim 8, Sasaki et. al. and Ueno disclose the information processing system according to claim 1. However, Sasaki et. al. and Ueno fail to disclose wherein the at least one processor is configured to execute the instructions to detect a location of the living body wearing the wearing item based on a verification result, and estimates in which location the body other than the living body is impersonating the living body, in response to determining that the body other than the living body is impersonating the living body.
Norimatsu teaches wherein the at least one processor is configured to execute the instructions to detect a location of the living body wearing the wearing item based on a verification result, and estimates in which location the body other than the living body is impersonating the living body, in response to determining that the body other than the living body is impersonating the living body (Norimatsu pg. 32, para. 7: The guidance G42 may include a guidance display such as an arrow indicating the location of the remote examination dedicated lane L1. Pg. 12, para. 3: Further, the CPU 202 can determine whether or not the user U is a target of remote examination according to the behavior of the user U at the airport DA in the first country. The behavior of the user U at the airport DA in the first country is, for example, captured by the monitoring 70 and recorded as an in a monitoring server (not shown). The CPU 202 can access the monitoring server and use the information such as the face information of the user U included in the user information to specify the behavior of the user U in the video recorded in the monitoring server. For example, when the CPU 202 determines that the specified action is an unnatural or suspicious action such as staying at a specific place for a long time or having a suspicious action in a duty-free shop or the like. Can determine that the user U is not subject to the remote examination. In addition to the above, the CPU 202 can also determine whether or not the user U is subject to remote examination, based on the item information included in the user information of the user U.).
This is important to the claimed invention because when spoofing occurs, it is critical for the person to be located promptly to improve security measures for the area. Thus, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the teachings of Sasaki et. al., Ueno, and Norimatsu so that the location determination is included as part of the solution of the claimed invention.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JESSICA YIFANG LIN whose telephone number is (571)272-6435. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:00am-6:15pm, with optional day off.
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, Vu Le can be reached at 571-272-7332. 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.
/JESSICA YIFANG LIN/Examiner, Art Unit 2668 September 18, 2026
/ANAND P BHATNAGAR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2668 September 25, 2026
Prosecution Insights