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 1-20 have been examined.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of copending Application No. 18/476,094 in view of Ridgill et al. U.S. Pub. No. 2024/0223856.
Regarding claims 1, 9 and 17, co-pending application discloses displaying anonymized content on second integrated display of an electronic device to protect privacy of human subjects in the image. Co-pending application does not explicitly disclose anonymizing image data to be displayed on second device with a second display. However, Ridgill discloses anonymizing content to be displayed locally or remotely on another device (Ridgill: [0016]-0020]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to protect privacy of data when data is displayed on another screen connected via network because Ridgill and related patent both disclose use of mobile device to share content. The motivation to combine would be to extend privacy protection beyond standalone devices.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection. See comparison of exemplary claims.
Instant Application
U.S. Application # 18/476,094
1. An electronic device comprising:
at least one first integrated display;
a memory that stores one or more photographic images;
a communications subsystem configurable to connect the electronic device to one or more second devices having at least one second display; and
a controller communicatively connected to the memory and the communications subsystem, and which:
presents, to an authorized user of the electronic device, the one or more photographic images on a first integrated display of the at least one first integrated display; and
in response to a trigger to present the one or more photographic images on a second display of the at least one second display while an image display function of the electronic device is set to a privacy mode:
recognizes one or more human subjects in the one or more photographic images;
anonymizes the one or more human subjects in a private mode version of the one or more photographic images; and
presents the private mode version of the one or more photographic images on the second display.
1. An electronic device comprising:
a housing having a first side and a second side opposite to the first side;
a first display positioned on the first side of the housing; a second display positioned on the second side of the housing;
a memory that stores one or more photographic images; 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 photographic images on the first display; and
in response to a trigger to concurrently present the one or more photographic images on the second display while an image display function of the electronic device is set to a privacy mode:
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; and
presents the private mode version of the one or more photographic images on the second display.
The dependent claims recite similar steps to protect privacy of user as recited in related application. Therefore, the dependent claims are also rejected (please refer to dependent claims of related application).
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, 5-9 and 13- 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ridgill et al. U.S. Pub. No. 2024/0223856 in view of Torsner et al. U.S. Pat. No. 12,131,542 (hereinafter Torsner).
As per claim 1, 9 and 17, Ridgill discloses an electronic device/method/product comprising:
at least one integrated display (Ridgill: [0046]): laptop computer, smart phone, etc.);
a memory that stores one or more contents (Ridgill: [0004]: content item to be shared); and
a controller communicatively coupled to the memory and the communication subsystem, and which:
presents, to an authorized user of the electronic device, the one or more content on the first integrated display of the at least one first integrated display (Ridgill: [0016]-[0019]: displaying content to authorized viewer on first display ); and
in response to a trigger to present the one or more content on a second display of the at least one second display while an image display function of the electronic device is set to a privacy mode (Ridgill: [0019]-[0020]: trigger privacy mode when content is to be displayed on shared display to other users);
presents the private mode version of the one or more content on the second display (Ridgill: [0021]-[0022]: obscured version of the image or content).
Ridgill discloses protecting privacy of display content. Ridgill 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 Ridgill 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.
As per claim 5 and 13, Ridgill as modified discloses the limitations of claims 1 and 9 respectively. Ridgill as modified further discloses wherein the controller, prior to anonymizing the at least one of the one or more human subjects: presents anonymization controls on the first integrated 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 (Ridgill: [0026]-[0027]: user can select content subject to privacy policy; 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, Ridgill as modified discloses the limitations of claims 1 and 9 respectively. Ridgill as modified further discloses wherein: the memory stores a universal device controller application; each of the at least one second device has a corresponding second memory with a universal device controller client stored therein; and the controller: executes the universal device controller application to configure the communications subsystem to support a communication exchange with the at least one second device, which executes the universal device controller client; and triggers, via the communication exchange, the at least one second device to present the private mode version of the one or more photographic images on the second display (Ridgill: [0016]-[0018]: shared content locally or remotely to be presented on external displays through network applications, and subject content to privacy policies).
As per claim 7 and 15, Ridgill as modified discloses the limitations of claims 1 and 9 respectively. Ridgill as modified further discloses wherein the communications subsystem comprises a wireless or wired networking interface connectable to the at least one second device comprising an external monitor (Ridgill: [0016]-[0018]).
As per claim 8 and 16, Ridgill as modified discloses the limitations of claims 1 and 9 respectively. Ridgill as modified further discloses wherein: the communications subsystem is configurable to connect the electronic device to the one or more second devices by transferring media to a media sharing network that is accessible by the one or more second devices; and the controller identifies the trigger to present the one or more photographic images on the second display based on a control input to transfer the one or more photographic images to the media sharing network (Ridgill: [0016]-[0020]: detect sharing of content via networked display system).
Claims 2, 10 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ridgill in view of Torsner and further in view of Joseph et al. U.S. Pub. No. 2023/0342487 (hereinafter Joseph).
As per claim 2, 10 and 18, Ridgill as modified discloses the limitations of claims 1, 9 and 17 respectively. Ridgill as modified does not explicitly disclose 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: [0039]). 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: [0008]).
Claims 3, 11 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ridgill in view of Torsner and further in view of Fithian et al. U.S. Pub. No. 2016/0132719 (hereinafter Fithian).
As per claim 3, 11 and 19, Ridgill as modified discloses the limitations of claims 1, 9 and 17 respectively. Ridgill 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 Ridgill in view of Torsner and further in view of Gupta et al. U.S. Pub. No. 2021/031224 (hereinafter Gupta).
As per claim 4, 12 and 20, Ridgill as modified discloses the limitations of claims 1, 9 and 17 respectively. Ridgill as modified discloses image capturing device on the first side of the housing that allows image to be captured (Ridgill: [0046]: smart phone), and displaying content on mobile device when presented to authorized user in single screen mode (Ridgill: [0019]: when content is viewed by authorized user initially on first display). Ridgill 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 integrated 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.
Zhang et al. U.S. Pub. No. 2022/0155819 discloses activating trusted user interface display to protect sensitive information when screen of mobile device is folded.
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.
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