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 .
This office action is in response to amendment filed on 1/12/2026. Claims 1-20 have been examined. This office action is Non-Final.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 1/12/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s arguments, see remarks, filed 1/12/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claims under Morisaki, Bishop, and Sugiura have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Finatti et al. (2024/0104881).
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.
Claims 1-3, 5, 11-13, and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morisaki (2022/0358788) in view of Bishop (2016/0034750) and in view of Sugiura (2019/0095757), and further in view of Finatti et al. (2024/0104881).
As per claim 1, Morisaki et al. discloses system for implementing image privacy, comprising:
a computing device in communication with an image recording device, the computing device configured to (Morisaki et al: See Figure 2, a computing device (i.e. store management
apparatus) in communication with an image recording device (i.e. camera #20, discloses 3 different cameras)
detect a human face within the image data captured by the image recording device using a facial recognition process (Morisaki: See para. 0056, Fig. 5, #1000 face image acquisition unit (i.e. facial recognition process), detecting a human face with image data).
Morisaki does not explicitly disclose determine an identity of an individual associated with the detected human face; compare the image data with a plurality of facial prints in a facial database to identify a facial print linked to the determined identity.
However, analogous art of Bishop discloses determine an identity of an individual associated with the detected human face (Bishop: para. 0030, identify a face on the image data, identifying the person); compare the image data with a plurality of facial prints in a facial database to identify a facial print linked to the determined identity (Bishop: para. 0017, 0030, comparing the image data with a plurality of face print information of faces).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include determine an identity of an individual associated with the detected human face; compare the image data with a plurality of facial prints in a facial database to identify a facial print linked to the determined identity of Bishop with Morisaki, the
motivation is that image data is used to detect, identity, or track movement of persons, this is an efficient security measure (Bishop: para. 0016).
Morisaki nor Bishop disclose retrieve a corresponding user authorization linked to the facial print from the facial database, wherein the user authorization comprises user consent from the identified individual for performing a data process using the image data; and perform the data process as a function of the user authorization.
However, analogous art of Sugiura discloses retrieve a corresponding user authorization linked to the facial print from the facial database, wherein the user authorization comprises user consent from the identified individual for performing a data process using the image data; and perform the data process as a function of the user authorization (Sugiura: para. 0033, 0055, and 0081, face image is registered in the database, user consent to use the image captured for learned model, thus performing a data process using the image data).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include retrieve a corresponding user authorization based on the facial print from a facial database, wherein the user authorization comprises user consent from the identified individual for performing a data process using the image data; and perform the data process as a function of the user authorization of Sugiura with the system/method of Morisaki and Bishop, the motivation is that it is an efficient security measure to obtain consent, to generate a learned model, thus the ability of detecting faces is more efficient (Sugiura: para. 0005).
Morisaki, Bishop, and Sugiura do not disclose execute one or more of ceasing image data collection or obscuring image data of one or more of unidentified individuals or negative consenting individuals in real time.
However, analogous art of Finatti discloses execute one or more ceasing image data collection or obscuring image data of one or more of unidentified individuals or negative consenting individuals in real time (Finatti: para. 0088, 0093, discloses obscuring image data of one or more of unidentified individuals).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include obscuring image data of one or more of unidentified individuals or negative consenting individuals in real time of Finatti with the system/method of Morisaki, Bishop, and Sugiura, the motivation is that this a security measure of obscure the faces of strangers that may appear in images (Finatti: para. 0088, 0093).
As per claim 2, Morisaki, Bishop, Sugiura, and Finatti disclose the system of claim 1.
Sugiura further discloses wherein the user authorization comprises positive user consent to performing the data process (Sugiura: para. 0033, 0055, and 0081, user consent to use the image captured for learned model, thus performing a data process using the image data).
Same motivation as claim 1 above.
As per claim 3, Morisaki, Bishop, Sugiura, and Finatti disclose the system of claim 1.
Morisaki further discloses wherein the user authorization is specific to a network of image recording devices (Morisaki: See Fig. 2, para. 0056, user’s consent (i.e. user authorization) is specific to a network of image recording devices (i.e. #20a, #20b, #20c).
As per claim 5, Morisaki, Bishop, Sugiura, and Finatti disclose the system of claim 1.
Morisaki further discloses wherein the user authorization includes a negative user consent and the computing device is further configured to revoke communications of data of the face as a function of the negative user consent (Morisaki: para. 0050, 0060, negative consent (i.e. no user consent)).
As per claim 11, rejected under similar scope as claim 1.
As per claim 12, Morisaki, Bishop, Sugiura, and Finatti disclose the method of claim 11. Sugiura further discloses user authorization is specific to the image recording device ((Sugiura: para. 0083)(i.e. camera).
Same motivation as claim 1 above.
As per claim 13, rejected under similar basis as claim 3.
As per claims 15-16, rejected under similar basis as claim 5.
Claims 4, 6-7, 14, and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morisaki et al. (2022/0358788) in view of Bishop et al. (2016/0034750) in view Sugiura (2019/0095757), in view of Finatti (2024/0104881) and further in view of Cheung (11,444,943).
As per claim 4, Morisaki, Bishop, Sugiura, and Finatti disclose the system of claim 1.
Morisaki, Bishop, Sugiura, nor Finatti disclose wherein the user authorization includes consent of a third-party.
However, analogous art of Cheung discloses wherein the user authorization includes consent of a third-party (Cheung: See Fig. 1 #130, col.8, lines 18-50, sharing of image data includes consent of user to authorize a third-party to share image data).
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 wherein the user authorization includes consent of a third-party of Cheung with the system/method of Morisaki, Bishop, Sugiura, and Finatti, the motivation is that a user may authorize the sharing of image data, this is a security measure that enforces authorized entities to share the image data (Cheung: col. 10, lines3-5).
As per claim 6, Morisaki, Bishop, Sugiura, and Finatti disclose the system of claim 1.
Morisaki, Bishop, Sugiura, nor Finatti disclose wherein the data process includes granting access to a security system.
Cheung discloses data process includes granting access to a security system (Cheung: col. 8, lines 18-37, col. 10, lines 3-5, discloses authorizing sharing with third parties).
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 data process includes granting access to a security system of Cheung with the system/method of Morisaki, Bishop, Sugiura, and Finatti, the motivation is that a user may authorize the sharing of image data, this is a security measure that enforces authorized entities to share the image data (Cheung: col. 10, lines3-5).
As per claim 7, Morisaki, Bishop, Sugiura, and Finatti disclose the system of claim 1.
Morisaki, Bishop, Sugiura, nor Finatti disclose wherein the data process includes sharing the image data representing the human face with a network.
Cheung discloses wherein the data process includes sharing the image data representing the human face with a network (Cheung: See Fig.1, col.10, lines 1-11, sharing the image data representing the human face with the online system (i.e. network)).
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 data process includes sharing the image data representing the human face with a network of Cheung with the system/method of Morisaki, Bishop, Sugiura, and Finatti, the motivation is that the image data can be shared by
different entities including a network; therefore, this method is very flexible allowing cross-application use (Cheung: col. 10, lines 3-5).
As per claim 14, rejected under similar basis as claim 4.
As per claims 17-18, rejected under similar basis as claims 6-7 respectively.
Claims 8, 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morisaki et al. (2022/0358788) in view of Bishop (2016/0034750) in view of Sugiura (2019/0095757) in view of Finatti (2024/0104881) in view of Cheung (11,444,943), and further in view of Rabb (2017/0186293).
As per claim 8, Morisaki, Bishop, Sugiura, and Finatti and Cheung disclose the system of claim 7.
Morisaki, Bishop, Sugiura, Finatti nor Cheung disclose wherein the network is a smart home security system.
Rabb discloses wherein the network is a smart home security system (: para.0067-0068, smart home security).
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 wherein the network is a smart home security system of Rabb with the system/method of Morisaki-Bishop- Sugiura-Finatti -Cheung combination, the motivation is that Sensors as disclosed herein may operate within a
communication network, such as a conventional wireless network, and/or a sensor-specific network through which sensors may communicate with one another and/or with dedicated other devices. Thus, sensors can operate in different modes in a smart home environment (Cheung: para. 0067-0068).
As per claim 19, rejected under similar basis as claim 8.
Claims 9 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morisaki et al. (2022/0358788) in view of Bishop (2016/0034750) in view of Sugiura (2019/0095757) in view of Finatti (2024/0104881) and further in view of Etchart et al. (2023/0068798).
As per claim 9, Morisaki, Bishop, Sugiura, and Finatti disclose the system of claim 1.
Morisaki, Bishop, Sugiura, Finatti do not disclose continuously filter through the image data to identify a plurality of individuals.
However, analogous art of Etchart disclose continuously filter through the image data to identify a plurality of individuals (Etchart: para. 0029, 0033).
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 continuously filter through the image data to identify a plurality of individuals of Etchart with Morisaki, Bishop, Sugiura, and Finatti, the motivation is that better identifying images, increasing accuracy (Etchart: para. 0033).
As per claim 20, rejected under similar basis as claim 9 above.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morisaki et al. (2022/0358788) in view of Bishop (2016/0034750) in view of Sugiura (2019/0095757), in view of Finatti (2024/0104881) in view of Etchart (2023/0068798) and further in view of Ukil (2014/0379704).
As per claim 10, Morisaki et al, Bishop, Sugiura, Finatti and Etchart disclose the system of claim 9.
Morisaki, Bishop, Sugiura, Finatti nor Etchart disclose wherein the face print includes a pseudonymous user identification.
However, analogous art of Ukil discloses wherein the face print includes a pseudonymous user identification (Ukil: para. 0054, pseudonym of face).
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 wherein the face print includes a pseudonymous user identification of Ukil with the system/method of Morisaki, Bishop, Sugiura, Finatti, and Etchart, this is an efficient method that ensures that faces that are not known or recognize have an identity using a pseudonym (Ukil: para. 0054).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JENISE E JACKSON whose telephone number is (571)272-3791. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:00am-3:30pm.
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, Philip J Chea can be reached on (571) 272-3951. 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.
2/9/2026
/J.E.J/ Examiner, Art Unit 2499
/PHILIP J CHEA/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2499