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 .
Status of Claims
This is in response to Applicant’s case, no. 19/133,003, with an effective filing date of 5/27/2025. Claims 1-11 are currently pending.
Priority
This is the first office action on the merits of the instant application which was filed 5/27/2025, claiming priority to 371 of PCT/JP2022/045630, filed 12/12/2022.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 5/27/2025 is/are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement(s) is/are being considered by the Examiner.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
See MPEP § 608.01(b) for guidelines for the preparation of patent abstracts.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because: it contains legal phraseology in lines 1, 2, 4, and 6 (i.e., line 1 “…means…”). A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text.
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:
Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or non-obviousness.
Claim(s) 1-5 and 10-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hu et al. (US Pat. Pub. No. 2021/0009080 A1), hereinafter referred to as Hu, in view of Nagai (US Pat. Pub. No. 2021/0368100 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Hu discloses:
A vehicle door control apparatus ([0004] technical solutions for vehicle door unlocking) comprising:
at least one memory storing instructions ([0015] sentence (s.)1, use of memory storing instructions and claim 20 which comprises a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium); and
at least one processor configured to execute the instructions ([0015] s.1, system includes a microprocessor) to:
authenticate the user using the image ([0008] performing facial recognition); and
unlock the specific door in a case where it is determined that the user has looked at the region corresponding to the specific door for the predetermined time or more and the user has succeeded in the authentication ([0008] as seen above regarding authentication, [0009] in response to successful face recognition, sending a vehicle door unlocking instruction to at least one vehicle door lock of the vehicle, and [0065] s.1, a duration in which the distance is less than the predetermined distance threshold reaches a predetermined time threshold which is construed as corresponding to a predetermined time).
Although Hu discloses in [0009] in response to successful face recognition, sending a vehicle door unlocking instruction to at least one vehicle door lock of the vehicle, which is construed as the recognition necessarily corresponding to a specific door that the user is intending to access, [0034] s.1, determining a spoofing detection result of a target object in a first image based on the first image, and [0142] key point information of the target object includes position information of a plurality of key points of the target object including an eye key point which further includes one or more of an eye contour key point, an eye corner key point, and a pupil key point, etc., it does not explicitly disclose:
detect a line of sight of a user based on an image obtained by capturing the user who intends to ride in a vehicle including a plurality of doors
determine based on the detected line of sight, whether or not the user has looked at a region corresponding to a specific door for a predetermined time or more.
However, Nagai in [0004] teaches an electronic device that can perform operation based on the line-of-sight input as intended by the user, even in a case where the positional relationship between the eye of the user and the electronic device changes. Furthermore in [0005], an acquisition unit configured to acquire first distance information that corresponds to a distance to an eye of the user; and a control unit configured to 1) set determination time based on the first distance information, and 2) determine that gaze has occurred, in a case where determination is made that the viewed position does not continuously change longer than the determination time. Further, [0053-54] teaches that it is determined that the viewed position changed from the viewed position the last time if the viewed position by the user slightly shifted and the system control unit resets a gaze timer, which measures the duration when the viewed position does not change continuously (sets the gaze timer to 0).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of vehicle security, line-of sight technology, anti-spoofing technology, and facial recognition before the effective filing date of the current invention to modify the vehicle safety method of Hu, by incorporating the line-of sight teachings of Nagai, such that the combination would provide for the predictable result of, as acknowledged by Nagai in [0003], improving the accuracy of determining the line-of-sight when the positional relationship between the eye of the user and the electronic device changes and whether the user has looked at a region corresponding to a specific door.
Claim(s) 10-11 recite(s) a method and a non-transitory computer-readable medium, respectively, having substantially the same features of claim(s) 1 above, therefore claim(s) 10-11 is/are rejected for the same reasons as claim(s) 1.
Regarding claim 2, Hu, as already modified by Nagai, discloses:
The vehicle door control apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the at least one processor is configured to execute the instructions to change the predetermined time in accordance with a direction of a face of the user in the image, as discussed in claim 1 regarding Nagai [0053-54] determined that the viewed position changed from the viewed position the last time if the viewed position by the user slightly shifted and the system control unit resets a gaze timer, which measures the duration when the viewed position does not change continuously, which is construed as changing the time based on the direction of the user’s face.
Regarding claim 3, Hu, as already modified by Nagai, discloses:
The vehicle door control apparatus according to claim 1 (see claim 1), Hu does not explicitly disclose:
wherein the at least one processor is configured to execute the instructions to change the predetermined time in accordance with a distance between the user and the vehicle.
However, Nagai is further relied upon where it is taught in [0048] that a gaze determination time, which is a threshold to determine whether a gaze occurred (a predetermined threshold), is switched in accordance with the distance between the eye of the user and the line-of-sight detection unit.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of vehicle security, line-of sight technology, anti-spoofing technology, and facial recognition before the effective filing date of the current invention to modify the vehicle safety method of Hu, as already modified by Nagai, by further incorporating the gaze determination time teachings of Nagai, such that as line-of sight are considered within Hu, the gaze determination time teachings are also considered.
Regarding claim 4, Hu, as already modified by Nagai, discloses:
The vehicle door control apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the at least one processor is configured to execute the instructions to:
a distance between the user and the vehicle is within a first distance ([0065] the predetermined condition may be less than a predetermined distance threshold, which is construed as a first distance), and
unlock the specific door after the distance between the user and the vehicle is within a second distance shorter than the first distance ([0008] as seen above regarding authentication, [0009] in response to successful face recognition, sending a vehicle door unlocking instruction to at least one vehicle door lock of the vehicle, and [0065] a duration in which the distance is less than the predetermined distance threshold reaches a predetermined time threshold which is construed as corresponding to a predetermined time and that the predetermined condition may be proximate the vehicle, which is construed as a second distance that is shorter than the first).
However, as stated in claim 1, Hu regarding the limitation determine whether or not the user has looked at the region corresponding to the specific door for the predetermined time or more relies upon Nagai [0053-54] which teaches that determined that the viewed position changed from the viewed position the last time if the viewed position by the user slightly shifted and the system control unit resets a gaze timer, which measures the duration when the viewed position does not change continuously, which is construed as determining whether or not a user has looked at a region of a specific door for a predetermined time or more. Nagai is further relied upon where it is taught in [0048] that a gaze determination time, which is a threshold to determine whether a gaze occurred (a predetermined threshold), is switched in accordance with the distance between the eye of the user and the line-of-sight detection unit.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of vehicle security, line-of sight technology, anti-spoofing technology, and facial recognition before the effective filing date of the current invention to modify the vehicle safety method of Hu, as already modified by Nagai, by further incorporating the gaze determination time teachings of Nagai, such that as line-of sight are considered within Hu, the gaze determination time teachings are also considered.
Regarding claim 5, Hu, as already modified by Nagai, discloses:
The vehicle door control apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the at least one processor is configured to execute the instructions to authenticate the user by face authentication (see claim 1 regarding [0008] performing facial recognition).
_____________________________________
Claim(s) 6-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hu et al. (US Pat. Pub. No. 2021/0009080 A1), hereinafter referred to as Hu, in view of Nagai (US Pat. Pub. No. 2021/0368100 A1) and Nechyba et al. (US Pat. Pub. No. 2014/0016837 A1), hereinafter referred to as Nechyba.
Regarding claim 6, although Hu, as already modified by Nagai, discloses determining a movement of a user towards a vehicle (see claims 1-3) as a prerequisite to initiating the facial recognition, the references do not explicitly disclose:
determine whether or not a face of the user in the image is a face of a living body, and
fail to authenticate the user in a case where the face of the user in the image is not determined to be the face of the living body.
However, Nechyba in [0029] s.4, teaches that liveness may be indicated by certain gestures, such as movement of the head around a vertical axis (e.g., shaking one's head) and/or a horizontal axis (e.g., nodding one's head). Furthermore, in [0029] s.10-12 it is taught that a liveness of a user is determined when a liveness score exceeds a predetermined threshold value, the anti-spoofing programs may determine that the liveness gesture is adequate to demonstrate that a legitimate live user is attempting to access functionalities controlled by the computing device. Based on the analysis and the detection of an adequate liveness gesture, the anti-spoofing programs may transition the computing device from a locked state to an unlocked state. On the other hand, the anti-spoofing programs may prevent access to functionalities controlled by the computing device when an adequate liveness gesture is not detected.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of vehicle security, line-of sight technology, anti-spoofing technology and facial recognition before the effective filing date of the current invention to modify the vehicle safety method of Hu, as already modified by the line-of sight teachings of Nagai, by incorporating the liveness teachings of Nechyba, such that the combination would provide for the predictable result of improving the anti-spoofing security measures to prevent unauthorized access to the vehicle.
Regarding claim 7, Hu, as already modified by Nagai and Nechyba, discloses:
The vehicle door control apparatus according to claim 6, wherein the at least one processor is configured to execute the instructions (see claim 1 regarding [0015] s.1 use of a processor)
based on a result of the determination, determines whether or not the face of the user in the image is the face of the living body (see claim 6 in Nechyba [0029] s.4, which teaches that liveness may be indicated by certain gestures, such as movement of the head around a vertical axis (e.g., shaking one's head) and/or a horizontal axis (e.g., nodding one's head) and s.10-12 it is taught that a liveness of a user is determined when a liveness score exceeds a predetermined threshold value).
Hu, as modified by Nagai, discloses the limitation to determine whether or not the detected line of sight has changed in [0053-54] teaches that it is determined that the viewed position changed from the viewed position the last time if the viewed position by the user slightly shifted and the system control unit resets a gaze timer, which measures the duration when the viewed position does not change continuously. however, Nagai is further relied upon regarding the limitation line of sight has changed with a change in a distance between the user and the vehicle as taught in [0048] that a gaze determination time, which is a threshold to determine whether a gaze occurred (a predetermined threshold), is switched in accordance with the distance between the eye of the user and the line-of-sight detection unit.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of vehicle security, line-of sight technology, anti-spoofing technology, and facial recognition before the effective filing date of the current invention to modify the vehicle safety method of Hu, as already modified by Nagai and Nechyba, by further incorporating the gaze determination time teachings of Nagai, such that as line-of sight are considered within Hu, the gaze determination time teachings are also considered.
_____________________________________
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hu et al. (US Pat. Pub. No. 2021/0009080 A1), hereinafter referred to as Hu, in view of Nagai (US Pat. Pub. No. 2021/0368100 A1), Nechyba et al. (US Pat. Pub. No. 2014/0016837 A1), hereinafter referred to as Nechyba, and the Li et al. article “Face anti-spoofing methods based on physical technology and deep learning”, hereinafter referred to as Li.
Regarding claim 8, Hu, as already modified by Nagai and Nechyba, discloses in claim 7 regarding the movement towards the vehicle in Nagai [0048] that a gaze determination time, which is a threshold to determine whether a gaze occurred (a predetermined threshold), is switched in accordance with the distance between the eye of the user and the line-of-sight detection unit, which is construed as a movement of the body (torso) towards the vehicle and Nagai [0053-54] which teaches that it is determined that the viewed position changed from the viewed position the last time if the viewed position by the user slightly shifted and the system control unit resets a gaze timer, which measures the duration when the viewed position does not change continuously, construed as detecting of a movement of the face, the references do not explicitly disclose:
determine whether or not the face of the user in the image is the face of the living body based on a movement of a torso of the user in the image and a movement of the face in the image.
However, Li teaches on pg.5 ¶1 detection of whether someone is presenting a fake face on a spoofing medium in front of the camera. The method teaches an algorithm imitates human behavior to check the spoofing medium in the scene comprising an upper-body (UB) detector which would detect the movement of a torso.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of vehicle security, line-of sight technology, anti-spoofing technology and facial recognition before the effective filing date of the current invention to modify the vehicle safety method of Hu, as already modified by the line-of sight teachings of Nagai and the liveness teachings of Nechyba, by incorporating the upper body movement detection teachings of Li, such that the combination would provide for the predictable result of improving the anti-spoofing security measures to prevent unauthorized access to the vehicle as acknowledged by Li on 5 ¶1 regarding detection of whether someone is presenting a fake face on a spoofing medium in front of the camera.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 9 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
There are inventions in the field that provide similar functionality and/or have similar features, as the prior art of record shows. However, the prior art does not disclose or render obvious determine whether or not a vertical movement of a region of the face of the user in the image is interlocked with a vertical movement of a region of the torso of the user in the image, and based on a result of the determination, determines whether or not the face of the user in the image is the face of the living body, in combination with the other elements required by the claim.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to KEITH ALLEN VON VOLKENBURG whose telephone number is (703)756-5886. The Examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30 am-5:00 pm.
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, Erin D. Bishop can be reached at (571) 270-3713. 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.
/Keith A von Volkenburg/ Examiner, Art Unit 3665
/AMELIA VORCE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3666
Prosecution Insights