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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
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.
Claim(s) 17-20, 23-26 and 29-32 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2018/154827 A1 to Tanizawa in view of US 2020/0104622 A1 Iwamoto.
Claim 17. (Currently Amended) Tanizawa teaches A non-transitory computer-readable medium storing a program causing a computer to execute an image processing method including: [0004] …a program capable of achieving privacy protection
controlling to acquire a first image; [0012] The image acquisition unit 101 acquires an image captured by the camera 20, FIG. 9 (a) – original image 110 (first image)
and controlling to mask the person included in the mask region in the first image. [0095]
controlling to receive a mask region for masking a person included in the first image; [0090] , FIG. 9 (b) – multilayer mask image 111 (mask region) and FIG. 9 (c) abstracted image – mask person
Tanizawa fails to explicitly teach masking a person included in the first image. However, Iwamoto, in the field of object detection in image data, teaches teach a mask region for masking a person included in the first image [0050] FIG. 4B, the human FIGS. 401 to 403 are human figures included in the target area 400. In the example shown in FIG. 4B, the detection unit 230 detects each of three human FIGS. 401 to 403.
Tanizawa [0004] achieves privacy protection without depending on a detection result of a person and easily achieving multi-stage processing for privacy protection for an image. Thus, before the effective filing date of the present application, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Tanizawa with the teachings of Iwamoto [Abstract, 0005] appropriately set the size range for an object as a detection target to be subjected to the predetermined processing.
Claim 18. (Previously presented) Tanizawa further teaches the non-transitory computer-readable medium storing a program causing a computer to execute an image processing method according to Claim 17 further including: controlling to estimate a position of a head portion of the person. [0076] upper body detection unit 150
Claim 19. (Previously presented) Tanizawa further teaches the non-transitory computer-readable medium storing a program causing a computer to execute an image processing method according to Claim 17 further including: controlling to identify a position of the person included in the first image based on a feature amount of an object included in the first image, [0073-0075] by associating a specific feature amount with attribute information from a past dictionary, such attribute information can also be recognized …
wherein the controlling to mask the person is configured to mask the person based on the position of the person. [0074]… it is also possible to use the detection position in the moving direction
Claim 20. (Previously presented) Tanizawa further teaches the non-transitory computer-readable medium storing a program causing a computer to execute an image processing method according to Claim 17 wherein the controlling to mask the person includes controlling to fill the person shown in the mask region in the first image. [0037] the background superimposition is a process of hiding a target by superimposing a background image on a target, and this is also a method widely used as an abstraction process.
Claim 23. (Currently Amended) Reviewed and analyzed in the same way as claim 17. See the above analysis and rationale.
Claim 24. (Previously presented) Reviewed and analyzed in the same way as claim 18. See the above analysis and rationale.
Claim 25. (Previously presented) Reviewed and analyzed in the same way as claim 19. See the above analysis and rationale. the person.
Claim 26. (Previously presented) Reviewed and analyzed in the same way as claim 20. See the above analysis and rationale.
Claim 29. (Currently amended) Reviewed and analyzed in the same way as claim 17. See the above analysis and rationale.
Claim 30. (Currently amended) Reviewed and analyzed in the same way as claim 18. See the above analysis and rationale.
Claim 31. Reviewed and analyzed in the same way as claim 19. See the above analysis and rationale.
Claim 32. (Currently amended) Reviewed and analyzed in the same way as claim 20. See the above analysis and rationale.
Claim(s) 21-22, 27-28 and 33-34 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2018/154827 A1 to Tanizawa in view of US 2020/0104622 A1 Iwamoto and in further view of JP 2005-117163 A to Kawai.
Claim 21. (Previously presented) Tanizawa fails to explicitly teach the first image based on a difference between the first image and a second image captured at an earlier time than the first image. Kawai, in the field of protecting a specific direction or a place within a range in which photographing can be performed by the operation of a camera, teaches the non-transitory computer-readable medium storing a program causing a computer to execute an image processing method according to Claim 17 wherein the controlling to mask the person is configured to mask the person shown in the first image based on a difference between the first image and a second image captured at an earlier time than the first image. [0046] First, since an immediately preceding image frame is held because of the inter-frame difference, a difference calculation with the current input image frame is performed (step S601), and a region having a change is detected (step S602). [-0047]
Tanizawa [0004] achieves privacy protection without depending on a detection result of a person and easily achieving multi-stage processing for privacy protection for an image. Thus, before the effective filing date of the present application, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Tanizawa with the teachings of Iwamoto [0007] to protecting a specific direction of an moving object.
Claim 22. (Previously presented) Kawai further teaches The non-transitory computer-readable medium storing a program causing a computer to execute an image processing method according to Claim 21 wherein the first image is an image acquired within a predetermined time after the second image is captured. [0047] First, the center of gravity is obtained for each region (circumscribed rectangle determined to be moving), and it is checked whether the center of gravity position has moved over time (step S606). If the center of gravity is moving, it is regarded as a person and a sub-mask corresponding to the changed portion is generated (step S610). The sub-mask refers to a mask of only the partial region…it is checked whether or not the shape of the change region is different from the change region of the previous frame (step S608), and if there is a change, it is regarded as a person. Otherwise, the shape change is confirmed by comparison with a past frame …
Claim 27. (Previously presented) Reviewed and analyzed in the same way as claim 21. See the above analysis and rationale..
Claim 28. (Previously presented) Reviewed and analyzed in the same way as claim 22. See the above analysis and rationale..
Claim 33. (Currently amended) Reviewed and analyzed in the same way as claim 21. See the above analysis and rationale.
Claim 34. (Previously presented) Reviewed and analyzed in the same way as claim 22. See the above analysis and rationale.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DELOMIA L GILLIARD whose telephone number is (571)272-1681. The examiner can normally be reached 8am-5pm.
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, John Villecco can be reached at (571) 272-7319. 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.
/DELOMIA L GILLIARD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2661