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 .
Amended claims 1-10 as submitted on 9/18/25 were examined. Applicant’s arguments directed at the amended claims were fully considered, but are moot in view of new rejections made below in response to the amendments.
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, 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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4, and 6-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grau (US 2019/0050592) in view of Uchino (US 2003/0206633).
Claims 1, 6, 8, and 10:
As per claim 1, Grau discloses:
At least one memory storing instructions, and at least one processor configured to execute the instructions (paragraphs 15-16 and Fig 3) to:
Determine whether an image analysis target image contains personal information (paragraph 21; Privacy sensitive areas of an image is identified. These areas are places in the image which contain things like personal identifying information and other personal things listed in paragraph 21 alongside personal identifying information).
Encrypt the image analysis target image if it is determined that the image analysis target image contain personal information (paragraphs 21-28)
Store the encrypted image analysis targe image (paragraphs 26-28).
Grau does not explicitly disclose an entirety of the image analysis target image is encrypted (i.e. in step b above). However, Uchino discloses an image encryption process where a user can set options to either encrypt the entirety of the image or a portion of the image, where if the user does not choose, the default is to encrypt the entire image (paragraphs 114 and 116).
Before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Grau’s invention using Uchino’s teachings such that the entirety of the image analysis target image was encrypted. Grau’s invention leaves open how much of the image analysis target image is encrypted, so is an invention ready for improvement. Thus, the rationale for why it would be obvious to modify Grau’s invention using Uchino’s teachings to arrive at an invention as recited in claim 1 is that doing so is applying a known technique to a known device/method/product ready for improvement to yield predicable results, see KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007). The predictable result in this case is that the entire image is encrypted.
The rejection of claim 1 applies, mutatis mutandis, to claims 6, 8, and 10.
Claims 2, 7, and 9:
As per claim 2, Grau further discloses wherein the image analysis target image is a still image or a moving image (paragraph 18; Cameras create still or moving images, depending on the type of camera).
The rejection of claim 2 applies, mutatis mutandis, to claims 7 and 9.
Claim 4:
Grau further discloses wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions to:
Determine whether the stored image analysis targe image requires image analysis using secure computation (paragraph 21; Determine if any image or sub-image requires encryption for privacy reasons).
Perform image analysis using secure computation on an image determined to require image analysis using the secure computation (paragraphs 23-24; Images/Sub-images are encrypted and obfuscated)
Claim(s) 3 and 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grau (US 2019/0050592) in view of Uchino (US 2003/0206633) in further view of Yasuhiro (JP 2011223109).
Note that the Yasuhiro reference is one listed in the IDS submitted on 11/29/23 by applicant. The citations used herein are references to the English translation of the document provided with a prior Office action mailed on 6/18/25.
Claim 3:
Grau does not discloses, but Yasuhiro discloses wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions to:
Receive personal information selected by a user ([Second Embodiment] as discussed on p6-7; Predetermined conditions are set by the user, including arbitrary timing and inputs at predetermined condition for encryption to the condition setting unit 126. Personal identification information (PII) can also be added to the image before the person is registered, i.e. PII is selected and added by a user).
Determine whether the image analysis targe image contains the personal information selected by the user ([Second Embodiment] as discussed on p6, paragraphs 4-7 and 9 under the [Second Embodiment] section in particular; Predetermined conditions added by the user is used to determine conditions for encryption of images).
Before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to further modify Grau’s invention to incorporate Yasuhiro’s teachings discussed above. The rationale for why it would be obvious is that doing so is nothing more than simple substation of one known element (i.e. static list of encryption targets as discussed in paragraph 21 of Grau) for another (i.e. dynamic/user selectable list of targets for encryption as taught by Yasuhiro) to achieve predictable results, see KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007).
Claim 5:
Grau does not disclose, but Yasuhiro discloses wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions to:
Determine whether the stored encrypted image analysis targe image contains personal information ([Third Embodiment], in particular, the 2nd and 6th paragraphs under [Third Embodiment] on p7, which discuss how all the items of an image is initially encrypted, but it is later determined which items of the image requires encryption or not and if an item does not require encryption, it is decrypted).
Decrypt an image determined not to contain the personal information ([Third Embodiment], in particular, the 2nd, 6th, and 13th paragraphs under [Third Embodiment] on p7-8).
Before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to further modify Grau’s invention to incorporate Yasuhiro’s teachings discussed above. The rationale for why it would be obvious is that doing so is nothing more than simple substation of one known element (i.e. type of encryption algorithm) for another (i.e. different type of encryption algorithm) to achieve predictable results, see KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007). Note that Grau’s invention does not place any limits on the type of encryption algorithm usable with his invention.
Conclusion
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 PONNOREAY PICH whose telephone number is (571)272-7962. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-5pm EST, 10am-6pm during Daylight Savings Time.
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, Farid Homayounmehr can be reached at 571-272-3739. 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.
/PONNOREAY PICH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2495
Prosecution Insights