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
Due to communications filed 7/24/25, the following is a non-final first office action. Claims 1-18 are pending in this application and are rejected as follows.
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, 7 , 13 provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1, 4, 7 of copending Application No. 18/384517 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both sets of claims disclose obtaining a first face image, registering the first face image based on a matching process of a prestored face image, obtaining an additional face image, perform an authentication type of process on the second face image to determine the permission of usage of a service.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
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) 1, 4, 7, 10, 13, 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over XU ET AL (CN 110443923 A) and further in view of NAKAJIMA (JP 2014106842 A).
As per claim 1, XU ET AL discloses:
obtain a first face image of a user using a camera provided at a check-in terminal at a
facility, (See claim 1 of XU et al: "at the hotel entrance, based on monitoring video intelligent terminal collects entering all the human face data hotel, wherein said video intelligent monitoring terminal is an active face detection, it at least includes a face detection module, a face image collecting module human face image data);
perform a first collation process using second face images registered predetermined in a database as collation targets for the first face image, (See claim 1 of XU et al: human face image data of the video intelligent terminal transmits the collected is sent to the server for further processing and stored in the face database...the first information collecting point is set at least comprises human face image collecting module on the hotel foreground area, face detecting identifying module of the foreground self-service terminal device extracting face image information field and comparing the human face image within a predetermined information face database stored in the reservation system by face detecting identifying module, according to the similarity judging whether it is the same human face, by matching, configured guest and granted by the system based on the access right of the face");
in a case where similarity calculated by collating face images in the first collation process
exceeds a first threshold, register the first face image as a face image of a user whose check-in
process is completed, (Xu: "step S1: the registration check-in stage: the first information acquisition point for face recognition and stores the face data. the hotel foreground region, using at least a human face image collecting module, a human face detection and recognition module of foreground self-service terminal device, collecting at least comprises information of the field face image and for identification and comparison with the subscription information.. step S1-2: human face image if the subscription information in the human face image matching the current obtained through the configured room and granted by the system based on the access right of the face, at the same time the human face information of the current acquisition associated with the subscription information stored in the face database");
obtain a third face image of a user utilizing a service at the facility; perform a second collation process using the first face image registered as collation targets for the third face image; and in a case where similarity calculated by collating face images in the second collation process exceeds a second threshold, permit use of the service, (Xu: “step S4: room access area, the fourth information collecting point for face recognition to open the room door. the two sides of the room setting room access intelligent terminal device, as the fourth information collecting point for face detection and recognition. human face information of the room to the room access intelligent terminal device obtaining the face image information and stored in the hotel management system database of correspondence to confirm alignment...the intelligent terminal, wherein proper height position is set outside the room is provided with a high definition camera, collecting human face images by the face detecting identifying module or transmitting the image to server information extraction and the face in the face database of the human face information corresponding to the room carries out similarity comparison for the similarity comparison is a high threshold, the comparison is by performing an open door operation, it is allowed to enter, wherein the set high threshold value to ensure the only allows to identify the result of high similarity.”);
XU ET AL does not disclose the following limitations, however, NAKAJIMA discloses:
at least one memory storing one or more instructions, (Such a collation apparatus 1 includes an arithmetic unit such as a CPU, a storage device such as a memory and an HDD (Hard Disc Drive), and an input that detects input of information from the outside such as a keyboard, a mouse, a pointing device, a button, and a touch panel. A device, an I / F device that transmits and receives various information via a communication line such as the Internet, a LAN (Local Area Network), and a WAN (Wide Area Network), and a display device such as an LCD (Liquid Crystal Display) It consists of a computer and a program installed on this computer. That is, by the cooperation of the hardware device and software, the above hardware resources are controlled by the program, and the above-described input unit 11, registration data storage unit 13, calculation unit 14, collation score storage unit 15, first The determination unit 17, the threshold storage unit 16, and the output unit 19 are realized. Note that the program may be provided in a state of being recorded on a recording medium such as a CD-ROM, a DVD-ROM, or a memory card.
wherein the first threshold and the second threshold are set according to a number of collation
targets, (NAKAJIMA: When the collation score is calculated, the first determination unit 17 calls the first threshold value from the threshold value storage unit 16 and the collation calculated by the first threshold value and the collation score calculation unit 14. The score is compared (step S6); When the collation score based on the nth registration data is larger than the first threshold (step S6: YES), the first determination unit 17 determines that the nth registration data and the collation data match, A determination result to be verified is output (step S13). This determination result is output from the output unit 19 to the outside; Here, a high value is set for the first threshold value so that only the person in question is allowed to collate. Therefore, when the collation score exceeding the first threshold is calculated, it is certain that the person corresponding to the collation data is the person corresponding to the registration data from which the collation score is derived. 1 determines that the collation is OK, and the collation operation is terminated at this point. Thereby, since it is not necessary to compare all the collation scores with the first threshold value, the collation operation is quickly performed; When the maximum collation score exceeds the second threshold (step S11: YES), the second determination unit 18 determines that the registration data corresponding to the maximum collation score matches the collation data, A collation result for collation OK is output (step S13). This determination result is output to the outside by the output unit 19; If the matching score is a sufficiently high value even if it does not exceed the first threshold value, the person of the registered data corresponding to the matching score often corresponds to the person of the matching data. Therefore, in the present embodiment, when the second threshold value lower than the first threshold value is set and the maximum matching score exceeds the second threshold value, the maximum matching score is set. It is determined that the person of the registered data corresponding to is equivalent to the person of the collation data, and the collation is OK; For example, in the collation score list as shown in FIG. 3, when the first threshold value is set to “2” and the second threshold value is set to “1”, each collation score is assigned to the first and second collation scores. The relationship with the threshold value is as shown in FIG. That is, there is no collation score exceeding the first threshold, and the largest collation score exceeding the second threshold is the collation score having the reference number of 15. In such a case, it is determined that the person corresponding to the registration data from which the collation score of the reference number 15 is derived corresponds to the person of the collation data and is collated OK).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include the above limitations as taught by Bossert in the systems of XU ET AL, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
As per claim 4, XU ET AL does not disclose the following limitations, however, NAKAJIMA discloses:
wherein the at least one processor is further configured to: set the first threshold higher than the second threshold, (“Here, a high value is set for the first threshold value so that only the person in question is allowed to collate. Therefore, when the collation score exceeding the first threshold is calculated, it is certain that the person corresponding to the collation data is the person corresponding to the registration data from which the collation score is derived. 1 determines that the collation is OK, and the collation operation is terminated at this point. Thereby, since it is not necessary to compare all the collation scores with the first threshold value, the collation operation is quickly performed.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include the above limitations as taught by Bossert in the systems of XU ET AL, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
As per claim 7, this claim recites limitations similar to those disclosed in independent claim 1 and is therefore rejected for similar reasons.
As per claim 10: setting the first threshold higher than the second threshold.
Please see the rejection for claim 4.
As per claim 13, this claim recites limitations similar to those disclosed in independent claim 1, and is therefore rejected for similar reasons.
As per claim 16: wherein the facility management method further comprises: setting the first threshold higher than the second threshold.
Please see the rejection of claim 4.
Claim(s) 2-3, 8, 9, 14-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over XU ET AL (CN 110443923 A) and further in view of NAKAJIMA (JP 2014106842 A), and further in view of (JP WO2019065491 A1).
As per claim 2, XU ET AL does not disclose the following, however, (JP WO2019065491 A1) discloses:
wherein the at least one processor
is further configured to:
set the second threshold higher than the first threshold.
However, (JP WO2019065491 A1) discloses: Abstract: second threshold 93 larger than the first threshold 92 and smaller than the matching threshold is set.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include the above limitations as taught by (JP WO2019065491 A1) in the systems of XU ET AL, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
As per claim 3, XU ET AL does not disclose the following, however, (JP WO2019065491 A1) discloses:
wherein the at least one processor is further configured to:
set the second threshold higher than the first threshold in a case where the second collation
process uses fewer face images as collation targets than the first collation process.
However, (JP WO2019065491 A1) discloses: [0067] On the other hand, if it is determined that the collation value is smaller than [first threshold (th1_i) + ε] as a result of the determination in step S106 (NO in step S106), then the calculated collation value and the second threshold ( It is compared and determined to be larger than (th2_i) (step S108). Specifically, the magnitude of the calculated collation value is compared with the upper limit value (th2i) of a collation value that is a threshold value determined in advance for each drug name and is not itself. In other words, it is determined whether or not the input image does not match the reference image that is currently referenced.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include the above limitations as taught by (JP WO2019065491 A1) in the systems of XU ET AL, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
As per claim 8: further comprising: setting the second threshold higher than the first threshold.
Please see the rejection for claim 2.
As per claim 9: further comprising: setting the second threshold higher than the first threshold in a case where the second collation process uses fewer face images as collation targets than the first collation process.
Please see the rejection for claim 3.
As per claim 14: wherein the facility management method further comprises: setting the second threshold higher than the first threshold.
Please see the rejection of claim 2.
As per claim 15: wherein the facility management method further comprises:
setting the second threshold higher than the first threshold in a case where the second
collation process uses fewer face images as collation targets than the first collation process.
Please see the rejection of claim 3.
Claim(s) 5, 11, 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over XU ET AL (CN 110443923 A) and further in view of NAKAJIMA (JP 2014106842 A), and further in view of NAKAZAWA (JP 2004353226 A).
As per claim 5, XU ET AL does not disclose:
wherein the at least one processor is further configured to:
cancel registration of face images used as collation targets in a case where a check-out
process is performed or a service usage period expires.
However, NAKAZAWA (JP 2004353226 A) discloses:
([0026] “Next, the person to be authenticated, the administrator or the like operates the input unit 25 to input predetermined items in input fields of the registration screen 500 such as a name, an age, a gender, and an affiliation. The expiration date of the identification information to be registered in the database 50 is automatically set in the expiration date column of the registration screen 500 (S416). Next, when the above settings are completed, the person to be authenticated or the administrator clicks a “register” button 511 on the registration screen 500. When detecting that the “registration” button 511 is clicked, the control unit 27 registers the content set on the registration screen 500 as collation information in the database 50. Further, the supervising unit 27 registers the image data stored in the memory or the like in the database 50 as feature data in association with the identification information displayed on the registration screen 500. As described above, the collation information and the feature data are registered in the database 50; [0028] The scrambling process is canceled for a signal that has been processed, and the scrambling process is not canceled for a signal that has not been scrambled, such as identification information”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include the above limitations as taught by NAKAZAWA in the systems of XU ET AL, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
As per claim 11: canceling registration of face images used as collation targets in a case where a check-out process is performed or a service usage period expires.
Please see the rejection for claim 5.
As per claim 17: wherein the facility management method further comprises:
canceling registration of face images used as collation targets in a case where a check-out
process is performed or a service usage period expires.
Please see the rejection of claim 5.
Claim(s) 6, 12, 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over XU ET AL (CN 110443923 A) and further in view of NAKAJIMA (JP 2014106842 A), and further in view of (JP 4923282 B2).
As per claim 6, XU ET AL does not disclose:
wherein the at least one processor is further configured to:
calculate the similarity in the first collation process by comparing feature values of the
first face image with feature values of the second face images; and
calculate the similarity in the second collation process by comparing feature values of the
third face image with feature values of the first face image registered.
However, (JP 4923282 B2) [Supplementary Note 25] The tablet packing device of Supplementary Note 24, wherein the image inspection processing part is configured to execute a first collation process of performing image collation between the capture image of the tablet and the correct image, and wherein the image inspection processing part is configured to, when a collation result obtained by the first collation process is coincidence and when a similar medicine similar to the tablet subject to the image inspection process exists, execute a second collation process of performing image collation between a region of the capture image, which corresponds to a pre-set similar portion similar to the similar medicine, and a region of the correct image which corresponds to the similar portion.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include the above limitations as taught by (JP 4923282 B2) in the systems of XU ET AL, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
As per claim 12:
calculating the similarity in the first collation process by comparing feature values of the
first face image with feature values of the second face images; and calculating the similarity in the second collation process by comparing feature values of the third face image with feature values of the first face image registered.
Please see the rejection for claim 6.
As per claim 18:
wherein the facility management method further comprises:
calculating the similarity in the first collation process by comparing feature values of the
first face image with feature values of the second face images; and calculating the similarity in the second collation process by comparing feature values of the third face image with feature values of the first face image registered.
Please see the rejection of claim 6.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Akiba Robinson whose telephone number is 571-272-6734 and email is Akiba.Robinsonboyce@USPTO.gov. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday 6:30am-4:30pm.
If attempts to reach the Examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner's supervisor, Nathan Uber can be reached on 571-270-3923. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Any inquiry of a general nature or relating to the status of this application or proceeding should be directed to the receptionist whose telephone number is (703) 305-3900.
July 7, 2026
/Akiba K Robinson/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit
Prosecution Insights