DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-20 are pending in this 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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION. —The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 9 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claim 9 recites "merging, by the computing device, the plurality of media data and the plurality of media data in a video stream comprising permission metadata; wherein the video stream is transmitted based on the permission metadata." This limitation is unclear because it is not apparent what two distinct sets of data are being merged. The phrase "the plurality of media data and the plurality of media data" repeats the same term twice and lacks antecedent basis for two different data sets.
Claim 19 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claim 19 recites "… program instructions to merge the plurality of media data and the plurality of media data in a video stream comprising permission metadata; wherein the video stream is transmitted based on the permission metadata." This limitation is unclear because it is not apparent what two distinct sets of data are being merged. The phrase "the plurality of media data and the plurality of media data" repeats the same term twice and lacks antecedent basis for two different data sets.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 4, 8, 11, 14 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Randall et al. (US20230269422A1) [hereinafter “Randall”].
As per claim 1, Randall discloses a computer-implemented method for privatizing media
feeds comprising:
receiving, by a computing device, a plurality of media data;( [ Randall, para [0051]” At a second block 204, the data processing system 100 selects portions of the image data on the basis of first data 306 indicating locations within the image data……The first data 306 may be implemented in a number of ways, for example, the first data 306 may include a copy of portions of the image data which are to be selected, pointers to the portions of the image data which are to be selected….”).
monitoring, by the computing device, the plurality of media data;( [Randall, para [0052]]” The selected portions of the image data represent objects in the frames of image data which are to be modified, for example, to redact or obscure information in the image data. [The image masks (the first data 306), may be generated automatically using object detection algorithms performed on the image data]. For example, image masks can be generated by processing the plurality of frames of the image data 304a to 304h using computer vision techniques to identify, (or detect), at least one predetermined class of object represented by the image data”)
determining, by the computing device, at least one vulnerable segment of the plurality of media data; [Randall, para [0052]] “The selected portions of the image data represent objects in the frames of image data which are to be modified, for example, to redact or obscure information in the image data. The image masks (the first data 306), may be generated automatically using object detection algorithms performed on the image data. For example, image masks can be generated by processing the plurality of frames of the image data 304a to 304h using computer vision techniques to [identify, (or detect), at least one predetermined class of object] represented by the image data.”) and
modifying, by the computing device, at least one vulnerable segment based on the determination. ([ Randall, para [0052]] “The selected portions of the image data represent objects in the frames of image data which are to be modified, for example, [to redact or obscure information in the image data]. The image masks (the first data 306), may be generated automatically using object detection algorithms performed on the image data. For example, image masks can be generated by processing the plurality of frames of the image data 304a to 304h using computer vision techniques to identify, (or detect), at least one predetermined class of object represented by the image data.”]).
As per claim 4, Randall discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein modifying the at least one vulnerable segment comprises altering, by the computing device, a video stream element of the at least one vulnerable segment preventing it from being emitted in an original state. ([Randall, para. [0057], [0094], [0070]]:“ The data processing system 100 [modifies, at a third block 206], the selected portions of the image data to generate modified portions…”[0057]… “In the examples described above with respect to FIGS. 4 and 5, the selected portions of the image data which are processed to create the modified portions of the image data 308a to 308c are selected for every frame of the image data in which the [sensitive information to be removed is present]. However, in other examples, it may be sufficient to modify a subset of the plurality of frames of the image data that include the sensitive information which is to be removed. That is to say, the selected portions of the image data may correspond to a subset of the plurality of frames of image data 304a to 304h in the video stream 302 even when more frames of the image data in the video stream 302 contain the sensitive information…”[0094]….” Encrypting the second data 310 may, in some instances, include encrypting the second data 310 according to a single-use encryption key. A single-use encryption key allows the second data 310 to be decrypted once so that it can be used to recover the selected portions. Thereafter, the second data 310 is no longer able to be decrypted by a user to whom it is provided. This allows the selected portions of the image data to be recovered for a single limited and specific circumstance while maintaining the general security of the information represented by the second data 310. T[his is of particular use where the method 200 is implemented for a video stream 302 which contains highly sensitive information…]”[0070]. The examiner interprets the “ altering” of the vulnerable segment as including encryption of the selected portions of the image.
As per claim 8, Randall discloses, the computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the plurality of media data comprises one or more of video data, audio data, LIDAR data, sonar data, temperature data, and infrared data. ([Randall, para. [0003]]: “Video streams may also comprise other data, such as audio data, and metadata…” and further teaches that “Image sensors may operate in the visible light spectrum, but may additionally, or alternatively, include sensors which operate outside of the visible light spectrum, for example, the infrared spectrum.”[0038].
The examiner interprets this as disclosing that the “plurality of media data’ includes any data captured from an environment, and therefore reasonably encompasses video, audio, LIDAR, sonar, infrared, and temperature data under the broadest reasonable interpretation.
As per claim 11, Randall discloses a computer system for privatizing media feeds, the computer system comprising: one or more processors, one or more computer-readable memories, ;([Randall, para.[0045], [0046]]” The processor(s) 102 comprises any suitable combination of various processing units including a central processing unit (CPU), a graphics processing unit (GPU), an Image Signal Processor (ISP), a neural processing unit (NPU), and others. The at least one processor 102 may include other specialist processing units, such as application specific integrated circuits (ASICs), digital signal processors (DSPs), or field programmable gate arrays (FPGAs). For example, the processor(s) 102 may include a CPU and a GPU which are communicatively coupled over a bus. In other examples, the at least one processor 102 may comprise a CPU only”[0045]….” The storage 104 is embodied as any suitable combination of non-volatile and/or volatile storage. For example, the storage 104 may include one or more solid-state drives (SSDs), along with non-volatile random-access memory (NVRAM), and/or volatile random-access memory (RAM), for example, static random-access memory (SRAM) and dynamic random-access memory (DRAM) Other types of memory can be included, such as removable storage synchronous DRAM, and so on. The computer-executable instructions 106 included on the storage 104, when executed by the at last one processor 102, cause the processor(s) 102 to perform a computer-implemented method for processing a video stream as described herein. and program instructions stored on at least one of the one or more computer-readable memories for execution by at least one of the one or more processors to cause the computer system to: program instructions to receive a plurality of media data; ;( [ Randall, para [0051]” At a second block 204, the data processing system 100 selects portions of the image data on the basis of first data 306 indicating locations within the image data……The first data 306 may be implemented in a number of ways, for example, the first data 306 may include a copy of portions of the image data which are to be selected, pointers to the portions of the image data which are to be selected….”).
program instructions to monitor the plurality of media data; ;( [Randall, para [0052]]” The selected portions of the image data represent objects in the frames of image data which are to be modified, for example, to redact or obscure information in the image data. [The image masks (the first data 306), may be generated automatically using object detection algorithms performed on the image data]. For example, image masks can be generated by processing the plurality of frames of the image data 304a to 304h using computer vision techniques to identify, (or detect), at least one predetermined class of object represented by the image data”)
program instructions to determine at least one vulnerable segment of the plurality of media data; [Randall, para [0052]] “The selected portions of the image data represent objects in the frames of image data which are to be modified, for example, to redact or obscure information in the image data. The image masks (the first data 306), may be generated automatically using object detection algorithms performed on the image data. For example, image masks can be generated by processing the plurality of frames of the image data 304a to 304h using computer vision techniques to [identify, (or detect), at least one predetermined class of object] represented by the image data.”) and program instructions to modify the at least one vulnerable segment based on the determination. ([ Randall, para [0052]] “The selected portions of the image data represent objects in the frames of image data which are to be modified, for example, [to redact or obscure information in the image data]. The image masks (the first data 306), may be generated automatically using object detection algorithms performed on the image data. For example, image masks can be generated by processing the plurality of frames of the image data 304a to 304h using computer vision techniques to identify, (or detect), at least one predetermined class of object represented by the image data.”]).
As per claim 14, Randall discloses the computer system of claim 4, wherein the program instructions to modify the at least one vulnerable segment comprise: program instructions to alter a video stream element of the at least one vulnerable segment preventing it from being emitted in an original state. ([Randall, para. [0045], [0047]]:“ The processor(s) 102 comprises any suitable combination of various processing units including a central processing unit (CPU), a graphics processing unit (GPU), an Image Signal Processor (ISP), a neural processing unit (NPU), and others. The at least one processor 102 may include other specialist processing units, such as application specific integrated circuits (ASICs), digital signal processors (DSPs), or field programmable gate arrays (FPGAs). For example, the processor(s) 102 may include a CPU and a GPU which are communicatively coupled over a bus. In other examples, the at least one processor 102 may comprise a CPU only”[0045]….” The data processing system 100 may be implemented as part of a single computing device, or across multiple computing devices as a distributed data processing system. The data processing system 100 may be included in a device used for capturing video (or a video camera). For example, the data processing system 100 can be included as part of the processing circuitry in the video camera. Alternatively, the data processing system 100 may be separate from the video camera and included in an image processing pipeline which includes the video camera. In this case, the data processing system 100 is connected to an output of the video camera over any suitable communication infrastructure, such as local or wide area networks, through the use of wired and/or wireless means.”[0047] Examiner interpretation: Randall clearly teaches program instructions to “alter” the selected video-stream elements such that the original content cannot be emitted, satisfying the requirement that the vulnerable segment is prevented from being output “in an original state.
As per claim 18, Randall teaches the computer system of claim 8, wherein the plurality of media data comprises one or more of video data, audio data, LIDAR data, sonar data, and infrared data. ([Randall, para. [0003]]: “Video streams may also comprise other data, such as audio data, and metadata…” and further teaches that “Image sensors may operate in the visible light spectrum, but may additionally, or alternatively, include sensors which operate outside of the visible light spectrum, for example, the infrared spectrum.”[0038].
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.
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.
Claims 2, 3, 12, 13, 17, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Randall et al. (US20230269422A1) [hereinafter “Randall”] in view of Owens et al. (US20160321260A1) [hereinafter “Owens”].
As per claim 2, Randall discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 1. Randall does not explicitly disclose wherein determining the at least one vulnerable segment comprises: detecting, by the computing device, a user associated with the plurality of media data associated with at least one vulnerable material in the plurality of media data not designed to be viewed by others. However, Owens in the same field of endeavor discloses wherein determining the at least one vulnerable segment comprises: detecting, by the computing device, a user associated with the plurality of media data associated with at least one vulnerable material in the plurality of media data not designed to be viewed by others. ([Owens, [0025], [0029]-[0030] “…signals associated with a content item that are indicative of objectionable (or undesirable) material. One type of objectionable material includes misleading, inaccurate, or otherwise false information that provokes or encourages the user to navigate to a specified website where additional false information appears” [0025] “The content analysis module 104 can analyze content items based on signals indicative of objectionable material in the content items. For example, the signals indicative of objectionable material can include a domain signal relating to a number of links to websites that identify the objectionable material as false, the links provided in response to content items published by a domain associated with a publisher of the content items. As another example, the signals indicative of objectionable material can include a keyword signal relating to a number of responses including one or more keywords indicative of objectionable material to a content item.”[0029] “ Based on one or more of the signals indicative of objectionable material, a content item that likely contains objectionable material can be identified.”[0030].
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filling date of the claimed invention for one of the ordinary skill in the art to modify Randall to further include determining the at least one vulnerable segment comprises: detecting, by the computing device, a user associated with the plurality of media data associated with at least one vulnerable material in the plurality of media data not designed to be viewed by others as suggested by Owens. One of the ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because Randall identifies vulnerable material through computer-vision detection while Owens teaches improved detection and tracking of the human user within video frames to enable privacy-preserving video modification (Owens, [0025],[0029]-[0030]) as cited above.
As per claim 3, the references as combined above disclose the computer-implemented method of claim 2. Owens further discloses wherein the at least one vulnerable material is determined by comparing, by the computing device, a plurality of user expressions to a pre-defined expressions blacklist ([Owens, [0025], [0029]-[0030] “…signals associated with a content item that are indicative of objectionable (or undesirable) material. One type of objectionable material includes misleading, inaccurate, or otherwise false information that provokes or encourages the user to navigate to a specified website where additional false information appears” [0025] “The content analysis module 104 can analyze content items based on signals indicative of objectionable material in the content items. For example, the signals indicative of objectionable material can include a domain signal relating to a number of links to websites that identify the objectionable material as false, the links provided in response to content items published by a domain associated with a publisher of the content items. As another example, the signals indicative of objectionable material can include a keyword signal relating to a number of responses including one or more keywords indicative of objectionable material to a content item.”[0029] “ Based on one or more of the signals indicative of objectionable material, a content item that likely contains objectionable material can be identified.”[0030]. Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filling date of the claimed invention for one of the ordinary skill in the art to modify Randall to further include at least one vulnerable material is determined by comparing, by the computing device, a plurality of user expressions to a pre-defined expressions blacklist as suggested by Owens. One of the ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because Randall identifies vulnerable material through computer-vision detection while Owens teaches determining vulnerable material by comparing user expressions to a pre-defined expressions blacklist.
As per claim 12, Randall discloses the computer system of claim 11. Randall does not explicitly disclose one or more processors, one or more computer-readable memories, and program instructions stored on at least one of the one or more computer-readable memories for execution by at least one of the one or more processors to cause the computer system to: program instructions to receive a plurality of media data; program instructions to monitor the plurality of media data; program instructions to determine at least one vulnerable segment of the plurality of media data; and program instructions to modify the at least one vulnerable segment based on determination. However, Owens in the same field of endeavor discloses one or more processors, one or more computer-readable memories, and program instructions stored on at least one of the one or more computer-readable memories for execution by at least one of the one or more processors to cause the computer system to: program instructions to receive a plurality of media data; program instructions to monitor the plurality of media data; program instructions to determine at least one vulnerable segment of the plurality of media data; and program instructions to modify the at least one vulnerable segment based on determination( [Owens, [0021], [0023] [0035]]” FIG. 7 illustrates an example of a computer system that can be utilized in various scenarios”…(0021), “A news feed… presents content items… The content items can include, for example, images uploaded by others in a social network of the user, accounts of activities of connections of the user, articles regarding subject matter of interest to the user, advertisements directed to the user, etc” (0023), “…the content analysis module 202. As shown in the example of FIG. 2, the content analysis module 202 can include a signal determination module 204, a signal analysis module 206, and a demotion determination module 208.” (0035)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filling date of the claimed invention for one of the ordinary skill in the art to modify Randall to further include one or more processors, one or more computer-readable memories, and program instructions stored on at least one of the one or more computer-readable memories for execution by at least one of the one or more processors to cause the computer system to: program instructions to receive a plurality of media data; program instructions to monitor the plurality of media data; program instructions to determine at least one vulnerable segment of the plurality of media data; and program instructions to modify the at least one vulnerable segment based on determination as suggested by Owens. One of the ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because Randall identifies vulnerable visual content, while Owens teaches a computing system executing instructions to detect and modify sensitive content via program modules.
As per claim 13, Randall discloses the computer system of claim 11. Randall does not explicitly disclose wherein the at least one vulnerable material is determined by program instructions to compare a plurality of user expressions to a pre-defined expressions blacklist. However, Owens in the same field of endeavor discloses wherein the at least one vulnerable material is determined by program instructions to compare a plurality of user expressions to a pre-defined expressions blacklist ([Owens, [0025], [0029]-[0030] “…signals associated with a content item that are indicative of objectionable (or undesirable) material. One type of objectionable material includes misleading, inaccurate, or otherwise false information that provokes or encourages the user to navigate to a specified website where additional false information appears” [0025] “The content analysis module 104 can analyze content items based on signals indicative of objectionable material in the content items. For example, the signals indicative of objectionable material can include a domain signal relating to a number of links to websites that identify the objectionable material as false, the links provided in response to content items published by a domain associated with a publisher of the content items. As another example, the signals indicative of objectionable material can include a keyword signal relating to a number of responses including one or more keywords indicative of objectionable material to a content item.”[0029] “ Based on one or more of the signals indicative of objectionable material, a content item that likely contains objectionable material can be identified.”[0030]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filling date of the claimed invention for one of the ordinary skill in the art to modify Randall to further include wherein the at least one vulnerable material is determined by program instructions to compare a plurality of user expressions to a pre-defined expressions blacklist. However, Owens in the same field of endeavor discloses wherein the at least one vulnerable material is determined by program instructions to compare a plurality of user expressions to a pre-defined expressions backlist as suggested by Owens. One of the ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because identifies sensitive visual material, while Owens teaches classification of content based on comparisons against a stored blacklist of objectionable indicators.
As per claim 17, Randall discloses the computer system of claim 11. Randall does not explicitly disclose program instructions to determine a receiving party for the plurality of media data including the modified vulnerable segment; and program instructions to select a variation of the plurality of media data based on the determination. However, Owens in the same field of endeavor discloses program instructions to determine a receiving party for the plurality of media data including the modified vulnerable segment; and program instructions to select a variation of the plurality of media data based on the determination ([Owens, [0047]]” when a user is subscribed to a domain that publishes content items, all content items published by the domain can receive a demotion value that is reduced to have a lower value or can receive a demotion value that is set to a zero value in connection with the user, even if the signals indicative of objectionable material otherwise suggest the presence of objectionable material in the content items. The signal analysis module 206 in this regard can prioritize an affirmative decision of a user to receive content items from a domain over any contrary determinations regarding the presence of objectionable material in content items from the domain. In various embodiments, when a content item…… objectionable material.”) The examiner interprets this as disclosing program instructions to determine a receiving party (the specific user) and select a variation of the media stream (demoted vs. full version) based on that determination.
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filling date of the claimed invention for one of the ordinary skill in the art to modify Randall to further include program instructions to determine a receiving party for the plurality of media data including the modified vulnerable segment; and program instructions to select a variation of the plurality of media data based on the determination as suggested by Owens. One of the ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because Randall teaches redacting or modifying vulnerable material, while Owens teaches selecting different content outputs for different recipients, thereby improving targeted privacy control.
As per claim 19, Randall discloses the computer system of claim 11. Randall does not explicitly disclose wherein program instructions to modify the at least one vulnerable segment further comprise: program instructions to merge the plurality of media data and the plurality of media data in a video stream comprising permission metadata; wherein the video stream is transmitted based on the permission metadata. However, Owens in the same field of endeavor discloses program instructions to modify the at least one vulnerable segment further comprise: program instructions to merge the plurality of media data and the plurality of media data in a video stream comprising permission metadata; ( [Owens, [0029], [0030]])”The content analysis module 104 can analyze content items based on signals indicative of objectionable material in the content items. For example, the signals indicative of objectionable material can include a domain signal relating to a number of links to websites that identify the objectionable material as false, the links provided in response to content items published by a domain associated with a publisher of the content items. As another example, the signals indicative of objectionable material can include a keyword signal relating to a number of responses including one or more keywords indicative of objectionable material to a content item.” [0029] “Based on one or more of the signals indicative of objectionable material, a content item that likely contains objectionable material can be identified.” [0030]. wherein the video stream is transmitted based on the permission metadata ([Owens, [0047]]” … The signal analysis module 206 in this regard can prioritize an affirmative decision of a user to receive content items from a domain over any contrary determinations regarding the presence of objectionable material in content items from the domain. In various embodiments, when a content item…… objectionable material”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filling date of the claimed invention for one of the ordinary skill in the art to modify Randall to further include program instructions to modify the at least one vulnerable segment further comprise: program instructions to merge the plurality of media data and the plurality of media data in a video stream comprising permission metadata; wherein the video stream is transmitted based on the permission metadata. However, Owens in the same field of endeavor discloses program instructions to modify the at least one vulnerable segment further comprise: program instructions to merge the plurality of media data and the plurality of media data in a video stream comprising permission metadata as suggested by Owens. One of the ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because Randall teaches redaction of sensitive segments, while Owens teaches metadata-based modification and selective transmission, making the combination a predictable improvement for controlling privacy-conditioned media distribution.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 as being unpatentable over (US20230269422A1) [hereinafter (“Randall”)] in view of Owens (US20160321260A1) and in view of Lui; James C. et al. (US 20130093788 A1) [hereinafter (“Lui”)]
As per claim 5, the combined references Randall and Owens above discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 2. The combination of Randall and Owens does not disclose wherein modifying the at least one vulnerable segment comprises: generating, by the computing device, an avatar configured to emulate the at least one vulnerable material; and overlaying, by the computing device, the avatar over the at least one vulnerable segment. However, Lui further discloses wherein modifying the at least one vulnerable segment comprises: generating, by the computing device, an avatar configured to emulate the at least one vulnerable material; and overlaying, by the computing device, the avatar over the at least one vulnerable segment.([Lui, [0142]” As mentioned above, for each location, the location based tracking application 453 may have assigned a predetermined visibility distance. For a real object for disappearance, a user or application may have selected an alteration technique such as replacing the undesired real object with an avatar overlay which tracks the facial expressions or at least the body movements of the real object, a person in this example. The person to be overlaid with the avatar may be within the predetermined visibility distance, but is more than forty feet away so the user cannot clearly see the facial expressions of the person.”). Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filling date of the claimed invention for one of the ordinary skill in the art to modify Randall to further include modifying the at least one vulnerable segment comprises: generating, by the computing device, an avatar configured to emulate the at least one vulnerable material; and overlaying, by the computing device, the avatar over the at least one vulnerable segment as suggested by Lui. One of the ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because Randall teaches redacting or modifying vulnerable material, while Lui teaches replacing sensitive visible content with avatars as a privacy-preserving substitution technique. Incorporating Lui’s avatar-based substitution into Randall’s redaction framework would provide a more flexible and user-perceptible privacy filter that preserves scene intelligibility while still preventing disclosure of identifying details.
Claims 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 as being unpatentable over (US20230269422A1) [hereinafter (“Randall”)] in view of Lui; James C. et al. (US 20130093788 A1) [hereinafter (“Lui”)]
As per claim 15, Randall discloses the computer system of claim 11. Randall does not explicitly disclose wherein the program instructions to modify the at least one vulnerable segment comprise: program instructions to generate an avatar configured to emulate the at least one vulnerable material; and program instructions to overlay the avatar over the at least one vulnerable segment. However, Lui in the same field of endeavor discloses the program instructions to modify the at least one vulnerable segment comprise: program instructions to generate an avatar configured to emulate the at least one vulnerable material; and program instructions to overlay the avatar over the at least one vulnerable segment .([Lui, [0142]” As mentioned above, for each location, the location based tracking application 453 may have assigned a predetermined visibility distance. For a real object for disappearance, a user or application may have selected an alteration technique such as replacing the undesired real object with an avatar overlay which tracks the facial expressions or at least the body movements of the real object, a person in this example. The person to be overlaid with the avatar may be within the predetermined visibility distance, but is more than forty feet away so the user cannot clearly see the facial expressions of the person.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filling date of the claimed invention for one of the ordinary skill in the art to modify Randall to further include wherein the program instructions to modify the at least one vulnerable segment comprise: program instructions to generate an avatar configured to emulate the at least one vulnerable material; and program instructions to overlay the avatar over the at least one vulnerable segment as suggested by Lui. One of the ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because Randall teaches redacting and modifying vulnerable content to protect privacy, whereas Lui teaches avatar substitution as a privacy-preserving replacement technique, making the combination a predictable improvement.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 as being unpatentable over Randall, Owens and Liu, as applied to claim 5, an further in view of Genay et al. (A. Genay, A. Lécuyer and M. Hachet, "Being an Avatar “for Real”: A Survey on Virtual Embodiment in Augmented Reality," in IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics, vol. 28, no. 12, pp. 5071-5090, 1 Dec. 2022, doi: 10.1109/TVCG.2021.3099290.) [hereinafter (“Genay”)] .
As per claim 6, the references as combined above disclose the computer-implemented method of claim 5. The combination of Randall and Lui does not explicitly disclose wherein the avatar is configured to be embedded in at least one of a virtual reality environment, an augmented reality environment, or a mixed reality environment. However, Genay discloses wherein the avatar is configured to be embedded in at least one of a virtual reality environment, an augmented reality environment, or a mixed reality environment. ([Genay, abstract]” Virtual self-avatars have been increasingly used in Augmented Reality (AR) where one can see virtual content embedded into physical space.” Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filling date of the claimed invention for one of the ordinary skill in the art to modify Randall to further include the avatar is configured to be embedded in at least one of a virtual reality environment, an augmented reality environment, or a mixed reality environment as suggested by Genay. One of the ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because Randall teaches redacting or modifying vulnerable material, while Lui teaches generating avatars as replacements, and Genay teaches the use of avatars embedded into virtual, augmented, or mixed-reality environments for presenting privacy-preserving representations of individuals. Incorporating these teachings would have predictably improved Randall by enabling avatar-based privacy protection across additional digital environments such as VR/AR.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 as being unpatentable over Randall et al. (US20230269422A1) and Liu, as applied to claim 15, and further in view of Genay et al.(US 20130093788A1)
As per claim 16, the references as combined above disclose the computer system of claim 15. Randall does not explicitly disclose wherein the avatar is configured to be embedded in at least one of a virtual reality environment, an augmented reality environment, or a mixed reality environment. However, Genay further discloses wherein the avatar is configured to be embedded in at least one of a virtual reality environment, an augmented reality environment, or a mixed reality environment. ([Genay, abstract]” Virtual self-avatars have been increasingly used in Augmented Reality (AR) where one can see virtual content embedded
into physical space.” Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filling date of the claimed invention for one of the ordinary skill in the art to modify Randall to further include the avatar is configured to be embedded in at least one of a virtual reality environment, an augmented reality environment, or a mixed reality environment. as suggested by Genay. One of the ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because Randall teaches redacting or modifying vulnerable material, while teaches Genay how avatar are embedded and visualized within immerse AR/VR/MR environments so that substituted content remains perceptible and properly aligned with the physical scene. Incorporating Genay’s environment-embedding techniques into Randall’s avatar-based redactions to operate consistently across additional content modalities particularly AR/VR where digital overlays must be spatially registered with the user’s view, thereby extending Randall’s privacy-preservation capabilities to emerging immersive media formats.
Claims 7 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 as being unpatentable over Randall.et al (US20230269422A) [hereinafter (“Randall”)] in view of Dufaux et al. (Scrambling for Privacy Protection in Video Surveillance Systems) [hereinafter (“Dufaux”)].
As per claim 7, Randall discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 1.Randall does not explicitly disclose determining, by the computing device, a receiving party for the plurality of media data including the modified vulnerable segment; and selecting, by the computing device, a variation of the plurality of media data based on determination. However, Dufaux in the same field of endeavor discloses determining, by the computing device, a receiving party for the plurality of media data including the modified vulnerable segment; and selecting, by the computing device, a variation of the plurality of media data based on determination. However, Miller in the same field of endeavor discloses ([Dufaux, pp. 1169-1170]” The same scrambled codestream is transmitted to all terminals independently from their access rights. Unauthorized clients, who do not possess the secret key, can only view a distorted version of the content where privacy-sensitive data is concealed. Conversely, authorized clients, e.g., law-enforcement authorities, can unscramble the codestream and recover the truthful scene”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Randall to include determining, by the computing device, a receiving party for the plurality of media data including the modified vulnerable segment; and selecting, by the computing device, a variation of the plurality of media data based on determination as suggested by Dufaux. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because Randall provides redacted content while Dufaux teaches a well-established privacy-preserving approach in which different viewing parties receive different visual variations of the same media based on authorization level. Incorporating Dufaux’s selective-access model into Randall would allow Randall’s redacted outputs to be tailored to specific viewer privileges enhancing the privacy-preservation system by aligning the degree of redaction with the viewer’s authorization rights.
As per claim 9, Randall discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 1. Randall does not explicitly disclose wherein modifying the at least one vulnerable segment comprises: merging, by the computing device, the plurality of media data and the plurality of media data in a video stream comprising permission metadata; wherein the video stream is transmitted based on the permission metadata. However, Dufaux in the same field of endeavor discloses wherein modifying the at least one vulnerable segment comprises: merging, by the computing device, the plurality of media data and the plurality of media data in a video stream comprising permission metadata; wherein the video stream is transmitted based on the permission metadata ([Dufaux, pp. 1169-1170]” The same scrambled codestream is transmitted to all terminals independently from their access rights. Unauthorized clients, who do not possess the secret key, can only view a distorted version of the content where privacy-sensitive data is concealed. Conversely, authorized clients, e.g., law-enforcement authorities, can unscramble the codestream and recover the truthful scene”) The examiner interprets this limitation as being met because Dufaux discloses a video codestream that embeds permission-related metadata , such that all users receive the same merged stream but only recipients possessing the appropriate metadata/keys can reconstruct the unmodified content, thereby transmitting different functional versions of the media based on embedded permission metadata.
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filling date of the claimed invention for one of the ordinary skill in the art to modify Randall to further include modifying the at least one vulnerable segment comprises: merging, by the computing device, the plurality of media data and the plurality of media data in a video stream comprising permission metadata; wherein the video stream is transmitted based on the permission metadata as suggested by Dufaux. One of the ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because Randall redacts or modifies vulnerable content for universal output, while Dufaux teaches integrating permission metadata into the video stream so that different receiving parties obtain different authorized versions of the same media, thereby improving privacy control and selective disclosure. Adding Dufaux’s permission-based metadata control to Randall’s modified media to vary according to authorization level, thereby enhancing selective disclosure while maintaining privacy protection.
Claims 10 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 as being unpatentable over (US20230269422A1) [hereinafter (“Randall”)] in view of Miller et al. (US 202000162236 A1) [hereinafter (“Miller”)].
As per claim 10, Randall discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 1. Randall does not explicitly disclose wherein the plurality of media data are maintained on a blockchain comprising a plurality of cryptographically linked blocks. However, Miller in the same field of endeavor discloses wherein the plurality of media data are maintained on a blockchain comprising a plurality of cryptographically linked blocks.([Miller, para. [[0095], [0111], [0116], [0120]]” In various embodiments, and in response to a user request, the reference link to the copy of the document stored in the document repository may be accessed via the block. The accessed reference link may be employed, via document repository synchronizer 328, to retrieve and/or recall the stored copy of the document.” [0095]” That is, the current block may be added to a [distributed blockchain-like ledger]. The current block may include at least one of the current fingerprint of the image, a reference to a previous block included in the distributed ledger, or a fingerprint of the previous block. The previous block may encode a previous transaction that includes a previous fingerprint of the image that corresponds to the previous state of the image” [0111]. “Metadata associated with the document may be stored in the blockchain”. [0116]. “In various embodiments directed towards maintaining a distributed ledger across a plurality of nodes, ……. component is configured to run only when the image editing application is currently in use.” [0120]). ”
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for one of ordinary skill in the art to integrate into Randall the blockchain comprising a plurality of cryptographically linked blocks as suggested by Miller. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because both references deal with managing sensitive visual data. Using a blockchain as taught by Miller would provide predictable benefits such as immutability, tamper detection, provenance tracking, and secure audit logs enhancements directly applicable to Randall’s output media management. Thus, applying Miller’s secure ledger to Randall’s media storage would represent a straightforward substitution of one known storage technique with another known secure alternative. Incorporating Miller’s blockchain storage into Randall’s would thus enhance integrity and traceability of redacted media data using a known secure-ledger approach.
As per claim 20, Randall discloses the computer system of claim 11. Randall does not explicitly disclose wherein the plurality of media data are maintained on a blockchain comprising a plurality of cryptographically linked blocks. However, Miller in the same field of endeavor discloses wherein the plurality of media data are maintained on a blockchain comprising a plurality of cryptographically linked blocks. ([Miller, para. [[0095], [0111], [0116], [0120]]” In various embodiments, and in response to a user request, the reference link to the copy of the document stored in the document repository may be accessed via the block. The accessed reference link may be employed, via document repository synchronizer 328, to retrieve and/or recall the stored copy of the document.” [0095]” That is, the current block may be added to a [distributed blockchain-like ledger]. The current block may include at least one of the current fingerprint of the image, a reference to a previous block included in the distributed ledger, or a fingerprint of the previous block. The previous block may encode a previous transaction that includes a previous fingerprint of the image that corresponds to the previous state of the image” [0111]. “Metadata associated with the document may be stored in the blockchain”. [0116]. “In various embodiments directed towards maintaining a distributed ledger across a plurality of nodes, ……. component is configured to run only when the image editing application is currently in use.” [0120]).Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for one of ordinary skill in the art to integrate into Randall the blockchain comprising a plurality of cryptographically linked blocks as suggested by Miller. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because both references deal with managing sensitive visual data. Using a blockchain as taught by Miller would provide predictable benefits such as immutability, tamper detection, provenance tracking, and secure audit logs enhancements directly applicable to Randall’s output media management. Thus, applying Miller’s secure ledger to Randall’s media storage would represent a straightforward substitution of one known storage technique with another known secure alternative.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure:
Modica et al., (US 20170358204 A1) discloses method, apparatus, and computer product for processing sensor data.
Tan et al., (US 20240054246 A1) discloses anonymizing caller identity based on voice print match.
Schoen et al., (US 20130151346 A1) discloses redacting portions of advertisements delivered to underage users.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Komi N. AMEVIGBE whose telephone number is (571)272-3381. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 2pm-10pm.
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, Carl Colin can be reached at (571) 272-3862. 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.
/K.N.A./Examiner, Art Unit 2493 /CARL G COLIN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2493