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 .
Claims 1, 3-9, 11-17, 19 and 20 have been examined.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 8/8/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding applicant’s remarks, applicant mainly argues that the prior art of record does not explicitly disclose a background inpainting application segments one or more portions of the one or more photographic images containing the one or more human subjects; redacts the one or more portions; and inpaints the redacted one or more portions based on unredacted portions of the one or more photographic images. Applicant asserts that Joseph does not explicitly recite the claimed and that the reference suggests inpainting often produces visual artifacts. However, Joseph discloses inpainting image to remove person and/or their face from the image to protect the privacy of the person (Joseph: Fig. 6D; [0039]-[0042]; [0111]-[0113]). Joseph also teaches generating modified image of user using machine learning model for more realistic look while preserving privacy of user (Joseph: [0004]). Although the modified image may cause visual artifacts, the techniques disclosed by Joseph are known and effective in preserving user privacy.
In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, the goal of protecting user privacy by redacting image via various techniques, including inpainting, is taught or at least suggested by the combination of references.
Regarding claims 7 and 8, Applicant’s argues that the Office Action relies on a generalization with no actual support within any of the references to conclude that the features of these claims are rendered obvious. However, the examiner disagrees. As indicated in previous Office Action, Tang as modified further discloses that the mobile device can be folded and unfolded to present different screen modes, and activate privacy protection mode when the dual screen mode is activated (Tang: Fig. 1: screens can be extended or folded to present different display modes; [0019]-[0022]: activate privacy protection mode after device is in dual screen mode activated by second switch). Tang does not explicitly disclose the specific hardware arrangement as recited in claim 7 to detect display modes. However, Tang at least suggests activating the privacy protection mode when the mobile device is folded or unfolded for single or dual screen operations, which correspond to retracting or extending the display screens using blade mechanism or retracting or extending the display screens using telescoping mechanism. Furthermore, activating privacy protection based on specific arrangement appears to be a matter of design choice, since the system of Tang would work equally well to enable privacy protection when dual screen operation is detected via hardware switch.
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, 5, 6, 9 and 13- 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tang et al. U.S. Pub. No. 2021/0056239 (hereinafter Tang) in view of Torsner et al. U.S. Pat. No. 12,131,542 (hereinafter Torsner) and further in view of Joseph et al. U.S. Pub. No. 2023/0342487 (hereinafter Joseph).
As per claim 1, 9 and 17, Tang discloses an electronic device/method/product comprising:
a housing having a first side and a second side opposite to the first side (Tang: Fig. 1: housing having two sides for dual screen);
a first display positioned on the first side of the housing (Tang: Fig. 1: first screen on one side);
a second display positioned on the second side of the housing (Tang: Fig. 1: second screen on the other side);
a memory that stores one or more contents (Tang: Fig. 3: memory); and
a controller communicatively coupled to the first and the second displays and to the memory, and which:
presents, for viewing by an authorized user of the electronic device, the one or more content on the first display (Tang: Fig. 1: single screen mode; [0019]: viewing content on single screen); and
in response to a trigger to concurrently present the one or more content on the second display while a display function of the electronic device is set to a privacy mode (Tang: [0019]-[0020]: display mode is turned to dual-screen mode to enable privacy protection function);
presents the private mode version of the one or more content on the second display (Tang: [0064]: process the display of the second screen so that the privacy content is hidden; [0072]: blurring).
Tang discloses protecting privacy of display content. Tang does not explicitly disclose the display content is photographic image, and the privacy protection function recognizes one or more human subjects in the one or more photographic images; anonymizes at least one of the one or more human subjects in a private mode version of the one or more photographic images. However, Torsner discloses detecting and modifying personal/sensitive information, including image of person, before displaying the content (Torsner: col. 1 l. 61- col. 2 l. 20: identifying sensitive information, i.e. image of person, generate replacement information that is at least partly anonymized information corresponding to the sensitive information). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to anonymize image containing person when the mobile device initiates privacy mode because Tang and Torsner both disclose protecting privacy of data stored on mobile devices. The motivation to combine would be that anonymizing sensitive information, including image, is well known in the art to protect privacy/identity of person in the image file.
Tang as modified does not explicitly disclose a background inpainting application, wherein, in anonymizing the at least one of the one or more human subjects, the controller: segments one or more portions of the one or more photographic images containing the one or more human subjects; redacts the one or more portions; and inpaints the redacted one or more portions based on unredacted portions of the one or more photographic images. However, Joseph discloses inpainting image to remove person and/or their face from the image to protect the privacy of the person (Joseph: Fig. 6D; [0039]-[0042]; [0111]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to inpaint redacted portion of image to hide identity of person because the references are analogous art to protect privacy of user data. The motivation to combine would be to make image file look realistic while protecting identity of user (Joseph: [0004]).
As per claim 5 and 13, Tang as modified discloses the limitations of claims 1 and 9 respectively. Tang as modified wherein the controller, prior to anonymizing the at least one of the one or more human subjects: presents anonymization controls on the first display; and anonymizes the at least one of the one or more human subjects in response to receiving an input to the anonymization controls that indicates the at least one of the one or more human subjects to anonymize from the one or more photographic images (Tang: [0064]: select area on the display screen, which is then processed by the system to protect privacy within the area; Torsner: col. 1 l. 61- col. 2 l. 20: image files to be obscured/anonymized). Same rationale applies here as above in rejecting claim 1.
As per claim 6 and 14, Tang as modified discloses the limitations of claims 1 and 9 respectively. Tang as modified further discloses wherein the housing is a foldable housing assembly comprising a first housing coupled at a hinge to a second housing that pivots between a fully folded position and a fully unfolded position; the first display is positioned on one of: (i) a front side of the foldable housing assembly exposed only in an unfolded position; or (ii) a back side of the foldable housing assembly exposed in both the fully folded and unfolded positions; and the second display is positioned on the other one of the front side and the back side (Tang: Fig. 1: single and dual screen mode where phone can be folded and unfolded into front and back sides for mirror mode).
As per claim 7 and 15, Tang as modified discloses the limitations of claims 1 and 9 respectively. Tang as modified further discloses that the mobile device can be folded and unfolded to present different screen modes, and activate privacy protection mode when the dual screen mode is activated (Tang: Fig. 1: screens can be extended or folded to present different display modes; [0019]-[0022]: activate privacy protection mode after device is in dual screen mode activated by second switch). Tang does not explicitly disclose the specific hardware arrangement as recited in claim 7 to detect display modes. However, Tang at least suggests activating the privacy protection mode when the mobile device is folded or unfolded for single or dual screen operations, which correspond to retracting or extending the display screens using blade mechanism. Furthermore, activating privacy protection based on specific arrangement appears to be a matter of design choice, since the system of Tang would work equally well to enable privacy protection when dual screen operation is detected via hardware or software configurations.
As per claim 8 and 16, Tang as modified discloses the limitations of claims 1 and 9 respectively. Tang as modified further discloses that the mobile device can be folded and unfolded to present different screen modes, and activate privacy protection mode when the dual screen mode is activated (Tang: Fig. 1: screens can be extended or folded to present different display modes; [0019]-[0022]: activate privacy protection mode after device is in dual screen mode activated by second switch). Tang does not explicitly disclose the specific hardware arrangement as recited in claim 7 to detect display modes. However, Tang at least suggests activating the privacy protection mode when the mobile device is folded or unfolded for single or dual screen operations, which correspond to retracting or extending the display screens using telescoping mechanism. Furthermore, activating privacy protection based on specific arrangement appears to be a matter of design choice, since the system of Tang would work equally well to enable privacy protection when dual screen operation is detected via hardware or software configurations.
Claims 3, 11 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tang in view of Torsner and further in view of Joseph and further in view of Fithian et al. U.S. Pub. No. 2016/0132719 (hereinafter Fithian).
As per claim 3, 11 and 19, Tang as modified discloses the limitations of claims 1, 9 and 17 respectively. Tang as modified does not explicitly disclose wherein: in recognizing the one or more human subjects, the controller performs facial recognition of the one or more human subjects based on facial recognition data stored in the memory for one or more persons; and to anonymize the at least one of the one or more human subjects, the controller selectively anonymizes an identified person designated for privacy mode, while other persons not identified for privacy mode are left visible within the private mode version of the one or more photographic images. However, Fithian discloses apply facial recognition to identify specific people that are subject to privacy policies and obfuscate selected people in the image based on privacy policies (Fithian: [0003]-[0004]: selectively obscure images of particular individuals based on privacy policies;[0015]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to selectively redact portions of the image based on person-specific policies because the references are analogous art involving protecting privacy of content through redaction or obfuscation of information. The motivation to combine would be to provide granular control on data sharing by generating customized images.
Claims 4, 12 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tang in view of Torsner and further in view of Joseph and further in view of Gupta et al. U.S. Pub. No. 2021/0312024 (hereinafter Gupta).
As per claim 4, 12 and 20, Tang as modified discloses the limitations of claims 1, 9 and 17 respectively. Tang as modified discloses image capturing device on the first side of the housing that allows image to be captured (Tang: Fig. 1: mobile device with integrated camera), and displaying content on mobile device when presented to authorized user in single screen mode (Tang: [0019]: dual screen mode enables privacy information protection function while single screen provides unobscured mode; Fig. 1: device with multiple display modes showing camera on the phone, the mobile device can be folded and unfolded), designating the selected one of the first display or the second display for presenting the one or more photographic image with application anonymization (Tang: [0019]). Tang as modified does not explicitly disclose a controller that captures, via the first image capturing device, an image of a user of the electronic device; performs facial recognition of the user; and presents the one or more photographic images on the first display without anonymization in response to identifying the authorized user of the electronic device based on the facial recognition. However, Gupta discloses performing facial recognition to authorized access to sensitive information on mobile devices is well (Gupta: [0025]-[0028]: perform facial recognition based on captured image to determine access). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to perform facial recognition to determine access sensitive data, including images, on mobile devices because they are analogous art. The motivation to combine would be that performing facial recognition to control access is well known and it provides fast and efficient authorized access to mobile device.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Adams et al. U.S. Pub. No. 20180260581 discloses indirect indications for applying display privacy filters.
Blum Shem-Tov et al. U.S. Pub. No. 20240241988 discloses method to manage privacy in video streams.
Dahan et al. U.S. Pub. No. 20230153473 discloses method for blurring and unblurring vidoes and photos in message box of a communication application.
Tagra et al. U.S. Pat. No. 11482041 discloses identity obfuscation in images utilizing synthesized faces.
Pinel et al. U.S. Pub. No. 20220292750 discloses selective redaction of images.
Vemury U.S. Pat. No. 11277557 discloses privacy-aware image capturing device that automatically obscures sensitive content.
Reeves U.S. Pat. No. 10528312 discloses dual screen property detail display.
Nagalia U.S. Pat. No. 10354126 discloses access control through multi-factor image authentication.
Cutler et al. U.S. Pat. No. 10181178 discloses privacy image generation system.
Karande et al. U.S. Pub. No. 20170024864 discloses method for image inpaiting.
Williams et al. U.S. Pub. No. 20160337599 discloses privacy filtering of area description file prior to upload.
Goyal U.S. Pub. No. 20160269376 discloses multiscreen secure content access.
Ahmed et al. U.S. Pub. No. 20150172238 discloses sharing content on devices with reduced user actions.
Lim et al. U.S. Pub. No. 20130217443 discloses mobile device with multiple screens that allow different display configurations using different rotating mechanism.
Kim et al. U.S. Pub. No. 20100227650 discloses mobile device with multiple screens that can be folded and unfolded.
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 SHIN HON (ERIC) CHEN whose telephone number is (571)272-3789. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Thursday 9am- 7pm.
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, Lynn Feild can be reached at 571-272-2092. 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.
/SHIN-HON (ERIC) CHEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2431