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 .
1. Claims 11-30 are currently pending in this application.
Claims 11, 18, and 25 are amended as filed on 04/08/2026.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 11-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
More specifically, claims 11, 18, and 25 contain the limitation “wherein the sensitive area comprises an area in the native image which involves user privacy”. The specification gives examples (of said limitation) in 0081, however, this paragraphs cites an example and does not provide a specific definition for the term. Furthermore, it is unclear how the privacy is determined by the system. For examination purposes, the limitation will be treated as if referring to recognizing human anatomy in an image. However, appropriate correction is required. Accordingly, claims 12-17, 19-24, and 26-30 are rejected, at least, based on their respective dependencies on claims 11, 18, and 25.
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.
Claim(s) 11-16, 18-23, and 25-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dirik et al. (Pre-Grant Publication No. US 2018/0240216 A1), hereinafter Dirik, in view of Kuta et al. (Pre-Grant Publication No. US 2022/0012362 A1), hereinafter Kuta, and in further view of Russell et al. (Pre-Grant Publication No. US 2022/0366608 A1), hereinafter Russell.
2. With respect to claims 11, 18, and 25, Dirik taught a method for image data desensitization (0021-0029, where the hiding of the image data is the data desensitization), comprising: determining a target image channel, in a native image, on which target recognition needs to be performed (0064, where any of the R, G, or B channels is a single channel from the image), wherein the target image channel is determined from a plurality images based on system settings or based on image quality of the plurality of single-channel images (0064, where this, at least, inherently teaches the system settings limitation as the system is performing its functions according to its programming, which includes the system’s settings); performing image restoration on native data corresponding to the target image channel, to obtain a single-channel image corresponding to a color component of the target image channel (0064 the selected channel to by anonymized); and performing data desensitization processing on the native data in the sensitive area (0064, performing the anonymization).
However, while Dirik did recognize the noise to be removed and could be argued that that represents a plurality of objects under broadest reasonable interpretation, in order to maintain a more compact prosecution, it will be taken that Dirik did not explicitly state that it performed recognizing a target object from the single-channel image; determining a sensitive area in the native image based on the target object. On the other hand, Kuta did teach recognizing a target object from the single-channel image (0046, where the objects can be seen in 0026, where the single-channel was previously shown in Dirik: 0064); determining a sensitive area in the native image based on the target object (0046, where the removed object from the image is the sensitive area). Both of the systems of Dirik and Kuta are directed towards desensitizing image data and therefore, it would have been ordinary to a person having ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the effective filing of the invention, to modify the teachings of Dirik, to utilize removing specific targeted objects from the image, as taught Kuta, in order provide another layer of protection of a user that desires as much.
However, while it could be argued under broadest reasonable interpretation that Dirik’s selecting of each target image separately (0064) could be considered selecting a target image from a plurality of images, in order to provide a more compact prosecution, the examiner contends that Dirik did not explicitly state that the image channel is determined from a plurality of images channels and wherein the sensitive area comprises an area in the native image which involves privacy of the user. On the other hand, Russell did teach that the image channel is determined from a plurality of images channels (0109 & figure 3, where even if they store non-image data, the R, G, and B channels are still image channels under broadest reasonable interpretation) and wherein the sensitive area comprises an area in the native image which involves privacy of the user (0096). Both of the systems of Dirik and Kuta are directed towards desensitizing image data and therefore, it would have been ordinary to a person having ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the effective filing of the invention, to modify the teachings of Dirik, to utilize removing data from specific targeted image channels, as taught Russel, in order provide more efficiently protect sensitive data by only adjusting the necessary channels.
3. As for claims 12, 19, and 26, they are rejected on the same basis as claims 1, 18, and 25 (respectively). In addition, Dirik taught determining a plurality of single-channel images corresponding to the native image based on array distribution information of an image sensor, wherein image sizes of the plurality of single-channel images are all smaller than that of the native image; and determining the target image channel based on the plurality of single-channel images (0064, where the different layers would make up the entire native image and are thus, individual smaller than the whole under broadest reasonable interpretation from a data-centric point of view).
4. As for claims 13, 20, and 27, they are rejected on the same basis as claims 1, 18, and 25 (respectively). In addition, Dirik taught performing image interpolation processing on the native image to determine a plurality of single-channel images corresponding to the native image, wherein image sizes of the plurality of single-channel images are all same as that of the native image; and determining the target image channel based on the plurality of single-channel images (0064, where the different layers would cover the entire image and thus, teach the same size under broadest reasonable interpretation from a geometric point of view).
5. As for claims 14, 21, and 28, they are rejected on the same basis as claims 1, 18, and 25 (respectively). In addition, Kuta taught recognizing the target object from the single-channel image by means of a pre-trained recognition model (0016, where the training can be seen).
6. As for claims 15, 22, and 29, they are rejected on the same basis as claims 1, 18, and 25 (respectively). In addition, Dirik taught setting a pixel within the sensitive area to a target pixel value, wherein a difference value between the target pixel value and a pixel boundary value is within a preset difference range (0050. See also: Kuta: 0024).
7. As for claims 16, 23, and 30, they are rejected on the same basis as claims 1, 18, and 25 (respectively). In addition, Kuta taught performing image blurring processing on the sensitive area (0003).
Claim(s) 17 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dirik, in view of Kuta, in view of Russell, and in further view of Pranskevichus et al. (Pre-Grant Publication No. US 2023/0267583 A1), hereinafter Prans.
8. As for claims 17 and 24, they are rejected on the same basis as claims 16 and 23 (respectively). However, Dirik did not explicitly state performing image blurring processing on the sensitive area of the native image by means of a preset convolution kernel. On the other hand, Prans did teach performing image blurring processing on the sensitive area of the native image by means of a preset convolution kernel (0030). Both of the systems of Kuta and Del are directed towards obfuscating an image and therefore, it would have been ordinary to a person having ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the effective filing of the invention, to modify the teachings of Kuta, to utilize specific techniques for image blurring, as taught Prans, in order to utilize efficient methods for data obfuscation.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claim(s) have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSEPH L GREENE whose telephone number is (571)270-3730. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday, 10:00am - 4:00pm.
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, Nicholas R. Taylor can be reached at 571 272-3889. 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.
/JOSEPH L GREENE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2443
Prosecution Insights