DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is a response to an RCE filed on 01/23/2026, in which claims 1-3 and 5-10 are pending and ready for examination.
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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 01/23/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-3 and 5-10 have been considered, but are not persuasive.
In regards to claim 1 applicant argues that claim 1 as amended requires "receiving a plurality of selections of privacy level from a plurality of levels of privacy related to a first face of the one or more faces, wherein each of the selected privacy levels are associated with corresponding areas of an environment" and "applying a level of privacy to the first face based on the corresponding area of the environment and the selected level of privacy associated with the corresponding area." Akselrod’s opt-out registry does not teach, suggest or disclose these limitation.
However, examiner respectfully disagrees. As best understood form paragraph 30 of the publication of the current application and the limitation of “wherein the plurality of levels of privacy comprise at least the use of a static graphic, blurred version, and complete elimination” in claim 2, selecting a privacy level from a plurality of privacy levels is referred to selection of the methods used to modify, blur, or eliminate a face in the images. Similarly, in paragraph 114 Akselrod mentions that an individual may select to blur, modify, transform, obscured, or obstruct his or her facial image captured in a live video stream. Furthermore, as disclosed by paragraphs 77-81 of Akselrod, when an individual visits areas or regions or sites where they are filmed or recorded by a video capturing device, such as a video camera, the video camera, in real-time, as it is recording, accesses the registry to determine which of the captured facial images of individuals are registered in the registry, and if any of the captured facial images of individuals are registered in the registry, the video camera automatically converts the captured facial images to unidentifiable or unrecognizable images. Thus, the argued limitations has been fully disclosed by the currently on file references.
Therefore, claims 1-3 and 5-10 remain rejected since the method disclosed by the applicant is taught by the prior arts.
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 1-2, 5-7, and 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Akselrod (2018/0061010 A1) in view of Gedamu (US 2020/0129066 A1) and further in view of Carter (US 2016/0358013 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Akselrod discloses: A method for implementing selective vision for a sensor (see paragraph 4 and Fig. 2), the method comprising:
storing digital representations of one or more faces in a memory (see paragraph 5 and 40);
receiving a plurality of selections of privacy level from a plurality of levels of privacy (see paragraph 114, each individual may select his/her facial images to be mortified, transformed, obscured, or obstructed based on the individuals selection) related to a first face of the one or more faces (see paragraph 40-42, if the recognized face of the individuals does not match with any stored faces, then the individual’s face will not be obscured or blurred, and when the recognized face of the individuals matches with any stored faces, then the individual’s face will be obscured or blurred), wherein each of the selected privacy levels are associated with corresponding areas of an environment (see paragraph 84-86, one or more individuals visiting areas, regions, or sites where they are filmed and the video camera converts all the captured facial images of individuals to unidentifiable or unrecognizable images);
receiving a stream of video of the environment (see Fig. 3 and paragraph 17 and 49, the news reporter and several individuals 240, 242, 244, 246 may be filmed in the background);
identifying at least one face within the stream of video (see paragraph 43, the facial recognition device 170 of the video camera 220 detects one or more faces during a filming or recording);
comparing the at least one face with the digital representations of the one or more faces in the memory (see paragraph 43, comparison is made between the images collected by the video camera 220 and the images stored in the opt-out registry 172 to determine whether a match exists);
identifying the first face from among the one or more faces (see paragraph 43, if a match does exist); and
applying a level of privacy to the first face (see paragraph 114, applying any one of the selected privacy actions) based on the corresponding area of the environment (see paragraph 84-86, one or more individuals visiting areas, regions, or sites) and the selected level of privacy associated with the corresponding area (see paragraph 114 and 43, a signal 260 is sent from the opt-out registry 172 to the video camera 220 to prompt or trigger the video camera 220 to obscure or blur the facial images of such individuals).
Akselrod does not explicitly disclose: the at least one face being associated with a body.
However, Gedamu from the same or similar endeavor discloses: the at least one face being associated with a body (see Gedamu, paragraph 64).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to “the at least one face being associated with a body” as taught by Gedamu in the selective vision system taught by Akselrod to provide a robust system which is also easy and intuitive to operate (see Gedamu, paragraph 34).
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Akselrod and Gedamu discloses: The method of claim 1, wherein the plurality of levels of privacy comprise at least the use of a static graphic, blurred version, and complete elimination and, wherein applying the level of privacy therefore further comprises applying at least one of a static graphic in place of the first face, a blurred version of the first face, and a representation of the surrounding environment in place of the first face (see Akselrod paragraph 43, to obscure or blur the facial images of individuals).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Akselrod and Gedamu discloses: The method of claim 2, further comprising: storing static images of people corresponding to at least some of the one or more faces in the memory (see Akselrod, paragraph 40, faces registered in opt-out database), wherein applying a level of privacy to the first face further comprises applying a static image corresponding to the first face (see Akselrod, paragraph 61-62).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Akselrod and Gedamu discloses: The method of claim 1, further comprising: storing three dimensional models of the one or more faces in the memory (see Akselrod, paragraph 62 and Gedamu, paragraph 58 and Fig. 1), and wherein applying a level of privacy to the first face further comprises applying the three dimension model corresponding to the first face (see Gedamu, paragraph 64).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Akselrod and Gedamu discloses: The method of claim 6, further comprising: storing three dimensional models of bodies associated with the one or more faces in the memory (see Gedamu, paragraph 58 and FIG. 1), and wherein applying a level of privacy to the first face further comprises applying the three dimension model to the body corresponding to the first face (see Gedamu, paragraph 64).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Akselrod and Gedamu discloses: The method of claim 1, wherein the sensor comprises a security camera of a plurality of cameras positioned at multiple areas of the environment (see Akselrod, paragraph 117).
Claim 3 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Akselrod (2018/0061010 A1) in view of Gedamu (US 2020/0129066 A1), and further in view of Shim (US 2016/0034704 A1).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Akselrod and Gedamu discloses: The method of claim 1, wherein applying a representation of the surrounding environment (see Akselrod paragraph 62, facial images and neighboring regions), but does not explicitly disclose: further comprises: copying images of the surrounding environment from video frames adjacent to the stream of video.
However, Shim from the same or similar endeavor discloses: copying images of the surrounding environment from video frames adjacent to the stream of video (see Shim, paragraph 114 and Fig. 8).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to “copying images of the surrounding environment from video frames adjacent to the stream of video” as taught by Shim in the selective vision system taught by Akselrod, Gedamu, and Carter to allow a photographer to protect privacy of a photographed person while conveniently capturing an image by using a general method (see Shim, paragraph 6).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Akselrod, Gedamu, and Shim discloses: The method of claim 3, wherein applying a representation of the surrounding environment eliminating the at least one face and an associated body from the stream of video (see Shim, paragraph 114 and Fig. 8).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Akselrod (2018/0061010 A1) in view of Gedamu (US 2020/0129066 A1) and further in view of Carter (US 2016/0358013 A1).
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Akselrod, Gedamu, and Carter discloses: The method of claim 1, but does not disclose: wherein the stream of video is associated with a home security system.
However, Carter from the same or similar endeavor discloses: wherein the stream of video is associated with a home security system (see Carter, paragraph 23, indoor/building security tracking and discovery of people or places).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have “the stream of video being associated with a home security system” as taught by Carter in the selective vision system taught by Akselrod and Gedamu to allow users to manage their own image privacy expectations through unique real-time imagery redaction workflows (see Carter, paragraph 7).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARYAM A NASRI whose telephone number is (571)270-7158. The examiner can normally be reached 10:00-8:00 M-T.
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, Joseph Ustaris can be reached on 5712727383. 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.
/MARYAM A NASRI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2483