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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 7-10, filed 5/27/25, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-22 under 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 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 Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn.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 the new prior art below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 of this title, 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, 7-9, 14-16 and 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aimi et al. (US 2015/0085163) in view of Simhadri et al. (US 2021/0209734).
Regarding claims 1, 14 and 21, Aimi teaches a video system (Fig. 1 and 14), comprising:
a set of images generated by a camera (Fig. 15, 22 and paragraph 176 teaches images that are generated by a camera);
a computing system adapted to apply a mask to an object in the set of images (Figs. 1 and 14 teaches a system that applies a mask/blurring to objects in the images captured by above camera);
the computing system adapted to identify an orientation of the object in an image from the set of images (Fig. 9 and paragraphs 186 teaches depth of field distance data and Figs. 8, 16 and paragraphs 173 and 183 teaches GPS data for determining object coordinates. Both of the data are used to calculate coordinates and distance/depth of objects in the captured images);
the computing system adapted to determine privacy thresholds for each of a plurality of points on the object in the image using the geometry of the object (paragraph 137 and Fig. 16-17 teaches privacy levels based on the above geometry);
the computing system adapted to apply the mask to the object in the image using the privacy thresholds, such that the mask provides different privacy at different points on the object (paragraph 137 and Fig. 16-17 teaches privacy levels based on the above geometry. However, while Aimi teaches the ability to apply a privacy level to different objects detected in the video, fails to explicitly teach “such that the mask provides different privacy at different points on the object”);
Additionally, Aimi also fails to teach that the geometry includes an orientation of the object.
Aimi in Fig. 16 illustrates that while the “object” is a person whose entire head is detectable, the privacy is applied to a certain range of coordinates (x1,y1) to (x2,y2), clearly suggesting that only certain areas of a face requires privacy masks or that different parts (like the non-facial portions of the user’s head) require different levels of privacy masking.
In an analogous art, Simhadri teaches that the geometry includes an orientation of the object and that “such that the mask provides different privacy at different points on the object in paragraphs 28, 102-105 and Figs. 1-2 wherein based on a determined pose/orientation of a person, the data is used to then identify a portion of the object to be facial anonymized.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current application to incorporate the teachings of Simhadri into the system of Aimi such that Aimi can utilize different levels of privacy for each of the pixels/points on the detected object, because such an incorporation allows for the benefit of improving the impact of privacy by masking certain portions more (paragraph 31).
The methodology of claim 21 is implemented by the system claims 1 and 14 above.
Regarding claim 2, Simhadri teaches the claimed wherein the computing system is further adapted to determine the privacy thresholds based in part of a perceived depth of the object in the set of images (paragraphs 34 and 77 teaches using depth frames to “accurately detect a person and/or humanoid shape in the frame”, and as discussed above, after the person is detected, processes for detecting a level of masking is determined).
Regarding claim 3, 15 and 22, Simhadri teaches the claimed wherein the orientation of the object includes a pose of the object (as discussed in claims 1, 14 and 21 above); wherein the geometry further includes a perceived depth of the object (as discussed in claim 2 above) and wherein the perceived depth determined using projections of points on the object in the image to world coordinates (Paragraphs 112).
Claim 7 is rejected for the same reasons as discussed in claim 14 above.
Regarding claims 8 and 16, Simhadri teaches the claimed wherein the orientation includes one or more expected sizes of the object (paragraphs 28, 77, and 82 and Figs. 1-2 teaches orientation and sizing).
Regarding claim 9, Aimi teaches the claimed wherein the computing system comprises a plurality of processors in communication over a network (Figs. 1 and 14, control unit, image processing unit, GPS processor and communication units).
Claims 10-11 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aimi et al. (US 2015/0085163) in view of Simhadri et al. (US 2021/0209734) and further in view of Iwai (US 2021/0042859).
Regarding claims 10 and 17, Aimi teaches a video surveillance system (Figs. 1 and 14), comprising: the system of claim 1 (see claim 1 discussion above);
Furthermore, Aimi teaches a system with a camera and also teaches wherein the set of images includes a live video stream from one of the plurality of cameras (Fig. 15, 22 and paragraph 176 teaches images that are generated by a camera); and
the mask includes pixelation (Aimi partially teaches this since a masking is taught as blurring, however, isn’t specific towards pixelation per se).
However, Aimi fails to explicitly teach, however, Iwai teaches the claimed:
a plurality of monitors (Fig. 1, User terminals 3);
a plurality of cameras (Fig. 1, cameras 1).
Iwai also teaches masking in the form of mosaic processing, which is another way referred to as pixelation, which mosaics pixels so that it become unrecognizable. Further still, Iwai applies the masking in a live stream as well (although claim only requires it come from a live stream at some point).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current application to incorporate the teachings of Iwai into the system of Aimi and Simhadri because such an incorporation allows for the benefit of applying privacy in surveillance type systems as well as applying them to recorded content.
Regarding claim 11, Aimi and Simhadri teaches the claimed wherein:
the object includes a person (Aimi in Figs. 7-9, 15 and paragraph 137 the faces/people are detected. Simhadri, see Figs. 1-2, face anonymized);
the mask obscures a face of the person (Aimi in Figs. 7-9, 15 and paragraph 137 the faces/people are blurred/obscured. Simhadri, see Figs. 1-2, face anonymized).
Claims 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aimi et al. (US 2015/0085163) in view of Simhadri et al. (US 2021/0209734) and further in view of Miksa et al. (US 2011/0123068).
Regarding claim 12, Aimi and Simhadri teaches the claimed as discussed in claim 1 above, however fails to, but Miksa teaches the claimed wherein:
a limit is applied to at least one of the privacy thresholds using a type of the object; the limit includes applying less or no privacy below a certain height on the object, such that an unnecessarily high amount of privacy is avoided if the object includes overlapping objects (paragraphs 91-95 teaches claimed wherein less privacy is applied below 1m of height based on multiple objects being detected in the field of view. which includes objects that may be overlapping as depicted by overlapping people/faces in Figs. 7a-7c).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current application to incorporate the teachings of Miksa into the system of Aimi and Simhadri because said incorporation allows for the benefit of improving necessary privacy shielding based on unnecessary processing (paragraphs 94-95).
Regarding claim 13, Aimi and Simhadri teaches the claimed as discussed in claim 1 above, however fails to, but Miksa teaches the claimed wherein: a limit is applied to at least one of the privacy thresholds using a type of the object; the limit includes applying privacy above a certain height on the object, such that an unnecessarily low amount of privacy is avoided if the object is not completely in the image (paragraphs 91-95 teaches wherein low privacy is avoided for heights above 1 meter of height based on multiple objects being detected in the field of view, which includes objects that may not be completely imaged as depicted in Figs. 7a-8c).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current application to incorporate the teachings of Miksa into the system of Aimi and Simhadri because said incorporation allows for the benefit of improving necessary privacy shielding based on unnecessary processing (paragraphs 94-95).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-6, 18-20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: the closest prior art in Aimi et al. (US 2015/0085163), Traff (US 2015/0145992) and Iwai (US 2021/0042859) do not teach nor suggest in detail the limitations of “the projections are determined by: identifying a first point and a second point on the object; calculating a first point distance from the camera to a projection of the first point on a ground in world coordinates; calculating a second point distance from the camera to a projection of the second point in world coordinates, the projection of the second point on an orthogonal that is orthogonal to the ground at the projection of the first point; calculating distances from the camera to the plurality of points, the plurality of points along the orthogonal from the projection of the first point to the projection of the second point, using the first point distance and the second point distance; the privacy thresholds for each of the plurality of points are determined using their associated distances” as recited in Independent claim 4 and 18. White Aimi, Traff and Iwai teaches various systems that allows for calculating various different levels of blurring based on a detected object and the object’s distance to the camera, fails to teach the above underlined limitations especially calculating a first point distance from the camera to a projection of the first point on a ground in world coordinates; calculating a second point distance from the camera to a projection of the second point in world coordinates, the projection of the second point on an orthogonal that is orthogonal to the ground at the projection of the first point; calculating distances from the camera to the plurality of points, the plurality of points along the orthogonal from the projection of the first point to the projection of the second point, using the first point distance and the second point distance; the privacy thresholds for each of the plurality of points are determined using their associated distances.
Furthermore, the underlined claim limitations above as recited in claims 4 and 18 (claims 5-6 and 19-20 depend therefrom) as recited in claims 4 and 18 appear to fall outside of the abstract idea groupings (as per 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (PEG)) including mathematical concepts, mental process and certain methods of organizing human activity. The claimed limitations are stated in such a manner the processes aren’t broad enough (for each of the claims as a whole) for them to fall into one of the three groupings of abstract ideas.
So as indicated by the above statements, the closest prior art as discussed above, either singularly or in combination, fail to anticipate or render the above combination of the discussed features/limitations obvious and additionally, applicant’s arguments have been considered persuasive, in light of the claim limitations as well as the enabling portions of the specification.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GELEK W TOPGYAL whose telephone number is (571)272-8891. The examiner can normally be reached M-F (9:30-6 PST).
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, William Vaughn can be reached on 571-272-3922. 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.
/GELEK W TOPGYAL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2481
Prosecution Insights