CTFR 18/242,424 CTFR 99522 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia 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 Amendment The Amendment filed February 23, 2026 has been entered. Claims 1-19 remain pending in the application. Applicant’s amendments to the Claims have overcome each and every objection previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed December 18, 2025. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-20-02-aia AIA This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention. 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 1-5, 8-11, 13 and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watanabe et al. (US 2021/0192816 A1) in view of Jeong (US 2022/0215727 A1) . Regarding claim 1, Watanabe discloses an image sensor device comprising circuitry configured to: receive an image (paragraph 0011: “a video processing device configured to acquire the video from at least one of the camera and the recorder”) ; detect one or more regions of interest in the image (paragraph 0011: “an object detector configured to detect an object included in the video in such a manner that a type of the object can be identified”) ; and determine, based on the image, whether a predetermined event has occurred (paragraph 0011: “an event detector configured to detect a focusing event which occurs to the object detected by the object detector”) ; wherein when it is determined that the predetermined event has occurred, an unobscured version of the image is output (paragraph 0011: “the masking target setter excludes, from the masking targets, one or more objects to which occurrence of the selected focusing event has been detected by the event detector”) ; and when it is determined that the predetermined event has not occurred (paragraph 0011: “the masking target setter simultaneously sets all objects of the selected type as masking targets”) , initiate obscuring processing to produce an obscured version of the image in which the one or more regions of interest are obscured (paragraph 0011: “a masking process controller configured to generate a masking-processed video in which each video area which corresponds to the object set as the masking target by the masking target setter, has been changed to a masking image”) and the obscured version of the image is output (paragraph 0011: “a video browsing device configured to display a masking-processed video generated by the video processing device”) . Watanabe additionally discloses any known technology may be used in the object detection (paragraph 0094) and any known technology may be used in the detection of events (paragraphs 0095-0096) . However, Watanabe fails to explicitly disclose running a first neural network configured to detect one or more regions of interest in the image; and running a second neural network configured to determine, based on the image, whether a predetermined event has occurred. In the related art of surveillance using artificial intelligence, Jeong discloses running a first neural network configured to detect one or more regions of interest in the image (Jeong paragraph 0007: “a step of acquiring a probability that at least one object corresponding to a type of a target object exists in an image of the respective sampled frames by using a first artificial neural network”) ; and running a second neural network configured to determine, based on the image, whether a predetermined event has occurred (Jeong paragraph 0007: “a step of acquiring an intrusion occurrence probability from the generated movement trajectory by using a second artificial neural network”) . It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Watanabe to incorporate the teachings of Jeong to enable highly accurate detection of objects (Watanabe paragraph 0094) and also increase the accuracy of event detection (Jeong paragraph 0015) . Regarding claim 2, Watanabe, modified by Jeong, discloses the image sensor device according to claim 1, wherein the predetermined event comprises a person in the image performing a predetermined action (Watanabe paragraph 0062: “an abnormal status of a person (such as Falling, Running, Staggering, and Assaulting) can be designated as a focusing event”) . Regarding claim 3, Watanabe, modified by Jeong, discloses the image sensor device according to claim 2, wherein the predetermined action comprises entering a predetermined area (Jeong FIG. 6, paragraph 0006: “detect an intrusion in the surveillance region”) . Regarding claim 4, Watanabe, modified by Jeong, discloses the image sensor device according to claim 3, wherein the predetermined area is identified using object recognition (Both Watanabe paragraph 0010 and Jeong paragraph 0014 teach identifying an object using object recognition. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the intrusion detection region in Jeong is an object that can be identified using such object recognition) . Regarding claim 5, Watanabe, modified by Jeong, discloses the image sensor device according to claim 3, wherein the predetermined area is determined by a user (Jeong paragraph 0039: “the user interface 111 receives information for setting an intrusion detection environment from a user of the surveillance camera 10” which “includes an intrusion detection region, an intrusion line, an intrusion direction, and so on”) . Regarding claim 8, Watanabe, modified by Jeong, discloses the image sensor device according to claim 1, wherein the circuitry is further configured to send an alert when it is determined that the predetermined event has occurred (Jeong paragraph 0063: “When the intrusion occurrence probability acquired in step 39 is greater than or equal to 90%, the processing proceeds to step 312...In step 312, the control unit 112 transmits an intrusion alert message to the server 30”) . Regarding claim 9, Watanabe, modified by Jeong, discloses the image sensor device according to claim 2, wherein the predetermined action comprises a gesture (Watanabe paragraph 0062: “an abnormal status of a person (such as Falling, Running, Staggering, and Assaulting) can be designated as a focusing event”) . Regarding claim 10, Watanabe, modified by Jeong, discloses the image sensor device according to claim 2, wherein the one or more regions of interest comprise a region of interest corresponding to the face of the person in the image performing the predetermined action (Watanabe Fig. 4, paragraphs 0058-0059: “a user can select one or more of different types of objects (Persons, Signboards, Vehicles, Animals)…When a user selects Persons, persons in the video are set as masking targets, and a video area corresponding to each person is changed to a masking image”) . Regarding claim 11, Watanabe, modified by Jeong, discloses the image sensor device according to claim 1, wherein the one or more regions of interest comprise a region of interest corresponding to a car license plate (Watanabe paragraphs 0058-0059: “a user can select one or more of different types of objects (Persons, Signboards, Vehicles, Animals)…When a user selects Vehicles, vehicles in the video are set as masking targets, and a video area corresponding to each vehicle is changed to a masking image”) . Regarding claim 13, Watanabe, modified by Jeong, discloses the image sensor device according to claim 1, wherein the obscuring processing comprises blurring the one or more regions of interest (Watanabe paragraph 0071: “The video processing device 3 generates a blurred image by extracting images of masking target areas (video areas to be masking targets) from a video and performing a blurring operation using a Gaussian filter on the extracted images of the masking target areas”) . Regarding claim 18, it is the corresponding method executed by the device claimed in claim 1. Therefore, Watanabe, modified by Jeong, discloses the limitations of claim 18 as it does the limitations of claim 1. Regarding claim 19, it is the corresponding non-transitory computer readable medium configured to execute the method claimed in claim 18. Therefore, Watanabe, modified by Jeong, discloses the limitations of claim 19 as it does the limitations of claim 18 . 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watanabe and Jeong in view of Merkel et al. (US 9058523 B2) . Regarding claim 6, Watanabe, modified by Jeong, discloses the image sensor device according to claim 3, wherein the circuitry is further configured such that the first neural network initiates the obscuring processing to obscure the one or more regions of interest by a predetermined amount (Watanabe paragraph 0011: “the masking target setter simultaneously sets all objects of the selected type as masking targets…each video area which corresponds to the object set as the masking target by the masking target setter, has been changed to a masking image”) . However, Watanabe and Jeong fail to explicitly disclose the predetermined amount is determined by a distance between the person and the predetermined area. In the related art of masking video surveillance, Merkel discloses the predetermined amount is determined by a distance between the person and the predetermined area (Merkel col 5 lines 11-19: “define the masking regions on the basis of depth charts or depth information in a depth chart device 6, wherein objects are masked that move at a defined distance from surveillance camera 2 or within a distance range in the surveillance region. For example, persons or license plates of automobiles that move outside of company property, or that move outside of a store, past the window, etc., are masked to protect their privacy”) . It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Watanabe and Jeong to incorporate the teachings of Merkel to protect the privacy of nonparticipants exactly and selectively, while still ensuring public spaces are protected (Merkel col 2 lines 61-67) . 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 7, 12 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watanabe and Jeong in view of Oya (US 2011/0096922 A1) . Regarding claim 7, Watanabe, modified by Jeong, discloses the image sensor device according to claim 3, wherein the first neural network initiates the obscuring processing to obscure the one or more regions of interest by a predetermined amount (Watanabe paragraph 0011: “the masking target setter simultaneously sets all objects of the selected type as masking targets…each video area which corresponds to the object set as the masking target by the masking target setter, has been changed to a masking image”) . However, Watanabe fails to disclose obtaining a previous determination result of whether the predetermined event has occurred; and the predetermined amount is based on the previous determination result. In the related art of selective masking, Oya discloses obtaining a previous determination result of whether the predetermined event has occurred (Oya paragraph 0058: “The network camera 100 stores objects relevant to previously detected events…Therefore, the event detection unit 106 can determine whether the object determined to be a human figure in step S504 is an object under monitoring”) ; and the predetermined amount is based on the previous determination result (Oya paragraph 0059: “The object subjected to the change processing in step S506 is the object determined not to be an object under monitoring in step S505”) . It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified Watanabe to incorporate the teachings of Oya to improve the possibility that an object relevant to a detected event can be observed at various times (Oya paragraphs 0011, 0098-0099) . Regarding claim 12, Watanabe, modified by Jeong, discloses the image sensor device according to claim 1, wherein the one or more regions of interest comprise a region that corresponds to the face of a person (Watanabe Fig. 4, paragraphs 0058-0059: “a user can select one or more of different types of objects (Persons, Signboards, Vehicles, Animals)…When a user selects Persons, persons in the video are set as masking targets, and a video area corresponding to each person is changed to a masking image”) . However, Watanabe fails to disclose performing facial recognition processing to determine if the person is an authorized person; and the predetermined event is the presence of an authorized person. In related art, Oya discloses performing facial recognition processing to determine if the person is an authorized person (Oya paragraphs 0126, 0128: “The metadata transmission unit 108 generates metadata including face detection information used for identifying the individual of the object determined to be a human figure by the object detection unit 107…When the face detection information is included in the metadata, the event detection unit 304 identifies the individual by using the individual authentication database 311”) ; and the predetermined event is the presence of an authorized person (Oya paragraph 138: “only when the object detection unit 107 detects a human figure not registered in the individual authentication database 311, the image processing apparatus 300 determines that the human figure is an object under monitoring. Then, the image processing apparatus 300 applies the change processing to the human figure determined to be an object under monitoring to make it unidentifiable to the client”) . It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified Watanabe to incorporate the teachings of Oya to improve the possibility that an object relevant to a detected event can be observed with advanced event determination processing (Oya paragraphs 0011, 0140) . Regarding claim 14, Watanabe, modified by Jeong, discloses the image sensor device according to claim 1. However, Watanabe fails to disclose when it is determined that the predetermined event is depicted, the circuitry is further configured to obtain a previous unobscured version of the image and output the previous unobscured version of the image. In related art, Oya discloses when it is determined that the predetermined event is depicted (Oya paragraph 0098: “when desertion is detected at the time t5”) , the circuitry is further configured to obtain a previous unobscured version of the image and output the previous unobscured version of the image (Oya paragraph 0098: “the image transmission unit 104 transmits image data while the change processing is canceled for the human figure b before the time t5”) . It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified Watanabe to incorporate the teachings of Oya to improve the possibility that an object relevant to an event can be observed even when the object relevant to the event has already disappeared at the time when the event is detected (Oya paragraph 0108) . 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watanabe and Jeong in view of Rao (US 2017/0076572 A1) . Regarding claim 15, Watanabe, modified by Jeong, discloses the image sensor device according to claim 1, wherein the image sensor device is a first image sensor device. However, Watanabe fails to explicitly disclose transmitting, when it is determined that the predetermined event has occurred, an instruction signal to a second image sensor device, the instruction signal instructing the second image sensor device to stop performing obscuring processing. In the related art of privacy masking, Rao discloses transmitting, when it is determined that the predetermined event has occurred (Rao paragraph 0049: “In response to the arming of the intrusion detection/alarm system or detection of an alarm condition, step 510 is performed”) , an instruction signal to a second image sensor device (Rao FIG. 3: camera 302 1 , ... , 302 N and/or video recorders 314 1 , … , 314 M ) , the instruction signal instructing the second image sensor device to stop performing obscuring processing (Rao paragraph 0049: “In step 510, a protocol message is sent to at least one camera and/or video recorder in order to override privacy masking operations thereof”) . It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified Watanabe to incorporate the teachings of Rao to improve the system performance by disabling the masking functions on a dynamic basis (Rao paragraph 0021) . Regarding claim 16, Watanabe, modified by Jeong, discloses the image sensor device according to claim 1, wherein the image sensor device is a first image sensor device. However, Watanabe fails to explicitly disclose transmitting, when it is determined that the predetermined event has occurred, an instruction signal to a second image sensor device, the instruction signal instructing the second image sensor device to perform obscuring processing to obscure the one or more regions of interest by a predetermined amount. In related art, Rao discloses transmitting, when it is determined that the predetermined event has occurred (Rao paragraph 0051: “When the intrusion detection/alarm system is unarmed or the alarm condition terminates”) , an instruction signal to a second image sensor device (Rao FIG. 3: camera 302 1 , ... , 302 N and/or video recorders 314 1 , … , 314 M ) , the instruction signal instructing the second image sensor device to perform obscuring processing to obscure the one or more regions of interest by a predetermined amount (Rao paragraph 0051: “a protocol message is sent to the camera(s) and/or video recorder(s) in order to cause the same to once again perform privacy masking operations”) . It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified Watanabe to incorporate the teachings of Rao to improve the system performance by disabling the masking functions on a dynamic basis (Rao paragraph 0021) . Regarding claim 17, Watanabe, modified by Jeong, discloses the image sensor device according to claim 1, wherein the image sensor device is a first image sensor device. However, Watanabe fails to explicitly disclose receiving a second image from a second image sensor device, and determining whether the predetermined event has occurred using the second image. In related art, Rao discloses receiving a second image from a second image sensor device (Rao FIG. 3: video recorders 314 1 , … , 314 M ) , and determining whether the predetermined event has occurred using the second image (Rao paragraph 0043: “when an exception alarm or alarm condition is detected by a sensor installed in a premises, video verification operations are performed…The on-premises video recording operations could be implemented by a video recorder (e.g., video recorder 314 1 , ... , and/or 314 M of FIG. 3) managed locally”) . It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified Watanabe to incorporate the teachings of Rao to determine if an alarm condition detected by a sensor is a genuine or false alarm (Rao paragraph 0043) . Response to Arguments 07-37 AIA Applicant's arguments filed 02/23/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. In response to Applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which Applicant relies (i.e., “the obscuring in the present application does not occur until after the predetermined event is determined to not occur” and “the present application does not default to obscuring all entities, and instead only performs the obscuring once a predetermined event has been determined to [not] occur”) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns , 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). For example, independent claim 1 recites when it is determined that the predetermined event has not occurred, obscuring is performed. While obscuring is performed in the context of a specific scenario, it is not explicitly claimed that obscuring is performed after or in response to the specific scenario. Furthermore, claim 1 does not specify obscuring is not performed when it is determined that the predetermined event has occurred. Therefore, it is not recited that obscuring is only performed when a predetermined event has been determined to not occur. Conclusion 07-40 AIA 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 CHRISTINE ZHAO whose telephone number is (703)756-5986. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00am - 5:00pm EST. 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, Andrew Bee can be reached at (571)270-5183. 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. /C.Z./ Examiner, Art Unit 2677 /ANDREW W BEE/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2677 Application/Control Number: 18/242,424 Page 2 Art Unit: 2677 Application/Control Number: 18/242,424 Page 3 Art Unit: 2677 Application/Control Number: 18/242,424 Page 4 Art Unit: 2677 Application/Control Number: 18/242,424 Page 5 Art Unit: 2677 Application/Control Number: 18/242,424 Page 6 Art Unit: 2677 Application/Control Number: 18/242,424 Page 7 Art Unit: 2677 Application/Control Number: 18/242,424 Page 8 Art Unit: 2677 Application/Control Number: 18/242,424 Page 9 Art Unit: 2677 Application/Control Number: 18/242,424 Page 10 Art Unit: 2677 Application/Control Number: 18/242,424 Page 11 Art Unit: 2677 Application/Control Number: 18/242,424 Page 12 Art Unit: 2677 Application/Control Number: 18/242,424 Page 13 Art Unit: 2677 Application/Control Number: 18/242,424 Page 14 Art Unit: 2677 Application/Control Number: 18/242,424 Page 15 Art Unit: 2677
Prosecution Insights