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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 7, 13, have been considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection necessitated by the amendment to the claims.
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(s) 1, 3-7, 9-13, and 15-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bender et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 20160241766) in view of Sato et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 20060028558) in further view of Matsumoto (U.S. Pub. No. 20190199908).
Regarding claim 1, Bender discloses:
A subject photographing apparatus, comprising:
a photographing device capable of photographing a subject (digital camera 110 capturing images of objects or people, par. 38 and 39);
an image photographing/videographing section, which is activated by a user operating a shutter button (processor controlling capturing an image by depressing a button on a side of device 100, par. 23, 43), for temporarily storing, in a memory, a state of the subject photographed by the photographing device (processor controlling captured image in device 100 that content rules will be used to determine compliance, par. 43);
an inappropriate image inference/determination section for retrieving the state of the subject from the memory and determining on an inappropriate image by inferring whether or not the state of the subject is an inappropriate image based on inappropriate image model data (processor controlling content screening that detects nudity, but additional content rules could be used that would cover other inappropriate behavior or actions or objects, e.g., intoxicated individuals, drug paraphernalia, confidential information, or other inappropriate pictures, where the content rules are implemented using algorithms, and the image is examined by the protection tool using content rules that determine that the image is inappropriate, par. 15, 20, 23, 35, and 43);
an inappropriate image processing section for not storing the state of the subject in an image storage area of a computer when the determination section determines that the image of the subject is an inappropriate image (using processor if the analysis of the captured image determines that the captured image contains inappropriate content, the captured image is prevented from having any durable persistence (i.e., being saved) in device 100, par. 23, 35, 40, 43); and
an appropriate image processing section for storing the state of the subject in the image storage area of the computer when the determination section determines that the image of the subject is not an inappropriate image (using processor if the content rules verify that the image is appropriate durable persistence of image on the device is allowed (i.e., saving the image on the device), par. 23, 35, 40, 43).
Bender is silent with regards to in the case of a video, the image photographing/videographing section stores, in the memory, the state of the subject sequentially from the start of the videographing at a regular time interval, wherein in the case of a video, the inappropriate image inference/determination section sequentially retrieves the state of the subject stored in the memory at a regular time interval and performs an inference, and wherein in the case of a video, the inappropriate image processing section stops the videographing of the video if it is determined by the inference that the state of the subject is an inappropriate image.
Sato discloses:
in the case of a video, the image photographing/videographing section stores, in the memory, the state of the subject sequentially from the start of the videographing at a regular time interval (judging that an image feature of the subject is present of a subject which moves during moving picture recording, par. 79-82, 163-166),
wherein in the case of a video, the inappropriate image inference/determination section sequentially retrieves the state of the subject stored in the memory at a regular time interval and performs an inference (as a region in which the subject is found moves the capturing-prohibited region moves, where the subject is found using features, par. 80, 166), and
wherein in the case of a video, the inappropriate image processing section stops the videographing of the video if it is determined by the inference that the state of the subject is an inappropriate image (during taking of a moving picture a region in which the subject is found cannot be captured as a capturing-prohibited region, par. 166).
As can be seen in par. 166 this is advantageous in that a natural moving picture can be created by creating and synthesizing a picture of the image capturing-prohibited region using time-series data of the captured moving picture. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include in the case of a video, the image photographing/videographing section stores, in the memory, the state of the subject sequentially from the start of the videographing at a regular time interval, wherein in the case of a video, the inappropriate image inference/determination section sequentially retrieves the state of the subject stored in the memory at a regular time interval and performs an inference, and wherein in the case of a video, the inappropriate image processing section stops the videographing of the video if it is determined by the inference that the state of the subject is an inappropriate image.
Bender is silent with regards to the state of the subject being stored in the memory and retained for subsequent control processing, and erases the image temporarily stored in the memory. Matsumoto discloses the state of the subject being stored in the memory and retained for subsequent control processing, and erases the image temporarily stored in the memory (in a case where the subject detection for detecting a subject taken in an image is performed by the image analysis section 18, the operation controller 22 may perform a control so that an image in which a subject that should not be publicly opened, such as an image of a person who does not want to publically open the face, is taken (state of subject), and an image in which a subject that should not be taken, such as an image of an art work which is exhibited in an art gallery, is taken cannot be used, and digital imaging device 12 may perform a process of deleting the image in which the specific person is taken after displaying the image in which the specific person is taken on an image display section included in the digital imaging device 12, par. 16 and 103-107). As can be seen in par. 107 this is advantageous in that it is possible to prevent the image in which the specific person is taken from being used. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the state of the subject being stored in the memory and retained for subsequent control processing, and erases the image temporarily stored in the memory.
Note that using video was previously shown.
Regarding claim 3, Bender further discloses:
an inappropriate image model data updating section for connecting to a data source on the Internet and updating the inappropriate image model data to make it up to date (using processor the computer readable program instructions can be downloaded to respective computing/processing devices from a computer readable storage medium or to an external computer or external storage device via a network, for example, the Internet, par. 23, 25).
Regarding claim 4, Bender further discloses:
an inappropriate image notification section for notifying a determination result to a third party if an inappropriate image is determined by the inference (using processor if the captured image in device 100 is not compliant with loaded content rules (i.e., NO), then at steps 440 and 445, the captured image is prevented from being durably persistent in device 100 and an error message is sent to the API 220 level and passed to user 120, par. 23, 45).
Regarding claim 5, Bender further discloses:
an inappropriate image scanning section for scanning an image or video file stored in the image storage area and having the inappropriate image inference/determination section perform an inference and a determination (using processor the captured image is analyzed against various content rules to ensure that the image does not contain any inappropriate content, par. 40).
Regarding claim 6, Bender is silent with regards to deletes the image or video file from the image storage area if the image stored in the image storage area is determined to be inappropriate as a result of the inference. Official Notice is taken that it was well known before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include scanning previously stored images to determine inappropriate images and deleting images determined to be inappropriate. This is advantageous in that previously undetected inappropriate images can be deleted to protect people’s privacy/wishes. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include deletes the image or video file from the image storage area if the image stored in the image storage area is determined to be inappropriate as a result of the inference.
It is noted by the examiner that because the applicant has failed to timely traverse the old and well-known statement above, it is now taken as admitted prior art. See MPEP 2144.03(c).
Regarding claims 7, 9, 10, and 11, see the rejection of claims 1, 3, 4, and 5 respectively and note that the limitations of claims 7, 9, 10, and 11 were shown.
Regarding claim 12, see the rejection of claim 6 and note that the limitations of claim 12 were shown.
Regarding claims 13, 15, 16, and 17, see the rejection of claims 1, 3, 4, and 5 respectively and note that the limitations of claims 13, 15, 16, and 17 were shown and that Bender uses a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing a computer software program (under control of a processor using computer program instructions stored on a RAM or ROM, par. 23-24).
Regarding claim 18, see the rejection of claim 6 and note that the limitations of claim 18 were shown.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 NICHOLAS G GILES whose telephone number is (571)272-2824. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 6:45AM-3:15PM EST (HOTELING).
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, Twyler Haskins can be reached at 571-272-7406. 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.
/NICHOLAS G GILES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2639