DETAILED ACTION
Authorization for Internet Communications
The examiner encourages Applicant to submit an authorization to communicate with the examiner via the Internet by making the following statement (from MPEP 502.03):
“Recognizing that Internet communications are not secure, I hereby authorize the USPTO to communicate with the undersigned and practitioners in accordance with 37 CFR 1.33 and 37 CFR 1.34 concerning any subject matter of this application by video conferencing, instant messaging, or electronic mail. I understand that a copy of these communications will be made of record in the application file.”
Please note that the above statement can only be submitted via Central Fax (not Examiner's Fax), Regular postal mail, or EFS Web using PTO/SB/439.
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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of claims 1 - 4 in the reply filed on 06/22/2026 is acknowledged but is not found persuasive because of the following;
Applicant argues that the inventions are directed to a single unified invention concept because the encrypted image generated by the electronic device of claims 1 – 4 serves as the input for the restoration device of claims 5 – 13 and the transmission device of claims 14 – 16. Applicant further argues that all claims are directed to an end-to-end secure imaging and therefore are not independent or distinct.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees with this argument because although the claimed inventions may be capable of operating together within a large imaging system, restriction practice under 35 U.S.C 121 is based on whether the inventions are technically related or whether one invention may provide data used by another invention. Rather, the inquiry is whether the inventions, as claimed, are independent or distinct and whether examination of all inventions together would impose a serious search and examination burden. Claims 1 – 4 are directed to an electronic device configured to capture an image as an encrypted image using a camera module including an optical element. Claims 5 – 13 are directed to a different electronic device configured to restore an encrypted image using an encryption key, including embodiments employing communication units, decryption modules, Fourier-domain deconvolution, deep learning networks, and AI processing. Claims 14 – 16 are directed to yet another electronic device configured to restore an encryption image and transmit the restored image to another authenticated electronic device. The claims are directed to different apparatuses having different structures and different primary functions. None of the independent claims require the structure of the other independent claims. Specifically, claims 5 and 6 do not require a camera module or optical element capable of producing an encrypted image. Claim 1 does not require the decryption architecture, communication unit, deep-learning restoration, Fourier-domain processing or authentication features recited in claims 5 – 16. Claim 14 introduces authenticated transmission functionality that is neither required by claims 1 – 4 nor by claims 5 – 13. Accordingly, the inventions are directed to different statutory apparatuses rather than different aspects of a single claimed invention.
Applicant further argues that searching claims 1 – 4 necessarily encompasses the subject matter of claims 5 – 16.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees with this argument because the search required for claims 1 – 4 is directed primary to camera modules, optical elements, optical image encryption and imaging hardware. The search required for claims 5 – 13 is directed to restoration algorithm, decryption processing, deep-leaning reconstructions, Fourier-domain image restoration, and AI processing. The search required for claims 14 – 16 additionally encompasses authenticated communication and transmission of restored image data. Theses subject matters reasonably require searching different classification and different bodies of prior arts. Examination of all three inventions together would therefore result in a serious search and examination burden.
Accordingly, applicant has not shown that the inventions are not independent or distinct or that the search burden identified in the restriction requirement is improper. The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 02/09/2025 is being considered by the examiner.
Specification
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required:
The examiner has carefully considered the applicant’s originally filed specification and respectfully notes that it fails to provide proper antecedent basis for the recitation “a display configured to decrypt the encrypted image” of claim 1. Furthermore, the applicant has not shown support for those features.
The Summary of the Specification literally says the display decrypts, but the Detail Description consistently teaches that the processor 180 performs the decryption while the display merely displays the resulting image (See Specification, page 4, para 0015). Further, the specification discloses the processor 180 may perform a function of decrypting an image encrypted based on an optical lens (See Specification; page 20, para 0083 and page 23, para 0092). However, the examiner points out that there is no disclosure of such within the specification nor is such shown within the applicant's drawings.
Thus, the specification fails to provide antecedent basis for the claim recitations. Furthermore, the applicant has not pointed out where the claim is supported, thus failing to enable a reasonable interpretation of the claims.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 3 - 4 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claims 3 and 4; the limitation “the processor” lacks proper antecedent basis.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim 2 is 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.
The term “unidentifiable manner” in claim 2 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “unidentifiable manner” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree i.e., what resolution, contrast, or distortion level constitute “unidentifiable” or whether “unidentifiable” is judged by a human observer, any algorithm, any matric etc., and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
For the purpose of the following rejection, the claims have been treated on merit.
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 claims at issue 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); and 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 a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO internet Web site contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit http://www.uspto.gov/forms/. The filing date of the application will determine what form 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 http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claim 1 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 – 3, 5 – 6, and 8 - 9 of copending Application No. 18/842,732. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other. Please see the following mapping table.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Instant Application No. 18/727,777
Co-pending Application No. 18/842,732
Claim 1, an electronic device that encrypts image information, the electronic device comprising: a camera module configured to capture an image and including an optical element inside the camera module, the optical element being designed to capture the image as an encrypted image; and a display operatively coupled to the camera module and configured to decrypt the encrypted image and display a decrypted image.
1. an electronic device that encrypts image information, the electronic device comprising: a camera module including at least one lens configured to capture an image; and an optical element coupled to be movable in an area in front of the at least one lens in such a manner that an object within the image is encrypted by being optically blurred or defocused to an extent that the object cannot be visually identified, wherein one surface of the optical element facing the at least one lens is formed in a shape of a parabola, and wherein a distance between the one surface and the at least one lens varies according to a position within an image capture area.
2. The electronic device of claim 1, wherein the camera module comprises: a plurality of lenses; an image sensor arranged to be separated from a first lens arranged rearmost among the plurality of lenses, and configured to convert an analog signal, associated with the image acquired through the plurality of lenses, into a digital signal; and the optical element arranged in front of a second lens arranged frontmost among the plurality of lenses such that the distance between the one surface of the optical element and the at least one lens is the same as a distance between the one surface of the optical element and the second lens, wherein the optical element is arranged in an exposure area of an iris adjusting an image capture area in such a manner as to adjust an amount of light to be introduced into the plurality of lenses.
3. The electronic device of claim 2, further comprising: an actuator configured to move the optical element relative to the second lens, wherein the actuator rotationally moves the optical element by a predetermined angle, thereby changing a format in which the image is encrypted.
5. The electronic device of claim 3, wherein the distance between the one surface of the optical element and the second lens is reduced from a first distance at a first end of the image capture area to a second distance at a second end thereof, along a first axial direction, thereby encrypting the image.
6. The electronic device of claim 5, further comprising: a processor configured to control a format in which the image is encrypted, by controlling the actuator, wherein the processor controls the format in which the image is encrypted, by enabling the actuator to rotationally move the optical element by a predetermined angle, wherein the distance between the one surface of the optical element and the second lens is formed to be changed, by rotational movement, from a third distance at the first end of the image capture area to a fourth distance at the second end thereof along the first axial direction, and wherein the third distance is different from the first distance, and the fourth distance is different from the second distance.
8. The electronic device of claim 6, further comprising: a memory configured in such a manner that encryption keys formed as results of the rotational movements of the optical element by predetermined angles are stored therein, wherein the encrypted image and the encryption keys are stored in the memory or a separate server.
9. The electronic device of claim 8, wherein the processor determines whether an access authority to access the encrypted image is retained, wherein, when the access authority is determined to be retained, the processor acquires from the memory an encryption key corresponding to an angle by which the optical element is rotated, and wherein the processor decrypts the encrypted image on the basis of the encryption key acquired by the processor and displays the decrypted image on a display in an identifiable manner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1 – 2, and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bergeron et al., (US 2017/0366293 A1) (hereinafter “Bergeron”).
Bergeron discloses;
Regarding claim 1, an electronic device that encrypts image information [i.e., an encryption system (see ref. 100 of figure 1), (see ref. 150 of figure 1A), (page 2, para 0024 and 00389)], the electronic device comprising:
a camera module configured to capture an image [i.e., the encryption system 100 includes a lens system 104 and camera sensor 112 (see figure 1), (page 2, para 0024 and 0032) i.e., a person and/or landscape being imaged (page 3, para 0039)]; and
an optical element inside the camera module [i.e., optical phased array 106 (see figure 1) i.e., second OPA 140 is the same as the OPA 106 (page 3, para 0037), (see figure 1A)], the optical element being designed to capture the image as an encrypted image [i.e., the second OPA 140 is in front of Lens systems 142 to encrypt optical signal (see figure 1A), (page 3, para 0038 and 0040), i.e., encrypting the optical signal in the optical phase array by phase shifting the plurality of beams from the first arrangement to a second arrangement (see ref. 404 of figure 4), (page 5, para 0064) i.e., as shown in FIG. C, the optical signal has been encrypted to change the appearance of the image from how it appeared in the first arrangement 170 to the second arrangement 172 (see figures 1B and 1C), (page 3, para 0042)], [i.e., the OPA 106 is positioned/disposed at different position before or after any lens [emphasis added] (page 3, para 0038)]; and
a display [i.e., GUI (see ref. 508 of figure 5), (page 7, para 0086)] operatively coupled to the camera module and configured to decrypt the encrypted image and display a decrypted image [i.e., decryption module 208 that decrypt the encrypted optical signal and returns it to its original form (page 1, para 0004, 0009 and 0012 - 0013), (page 4, para 0047 – 0061), (see figures 2 – 3)].
Regarding claim 2, the electronic device of claim 1, further comprising:
a processor configured to process the encrypted image [i.e., image module 110 processes the encrypted optical signal; computer system 500 includes processor 502 for executing encryption/decryption function (page 3, para 0035), (page 4, para 0054), (see figure 5)], wherein the camera is configured to include a plurality of lenses [i.e., the encryption system 100 includes a lens system 104 (see figure 1), (page 2, para 0024 and 0032) i.e., lens system 138 and 142 (see figure 1A), (page 3, para 0038)], and the optical element is arranged, together with the plurality of lenses and is configured to encrypt image in such a manner that the captured image is unidentified [i.e., scrambling the image into a second arrangement such that the original appearance is changed. The encrypted image appears scrambled/random (page 1, para 0002), (page 2, para 0028 - 0031), (page 3, para 0042 – 46) and (figures 1B – 1D)], and wherein the processor decodes the image encrypted in an unidentified manner by the optical element and displays the decrypted image [i.e., decryption module restoring the encrypted image to its original form (page 4, para 0047 – 0061), (see figures 2 – 3)].
Regarding claim 4, the electronic device of claim 1, wherein the processor transmits the encrypted image to another electronic device [i.e., transmitting the encrypted image over a communication network to a command post or remote station before decryption (page 1, para 0003 – 0005), (see figure 2)].
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) 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bergeron in view of RAD et al., (US 2018/0165466 A1) (hereinafter “RAD”).
Regarding claim 3, Bergeron discloses; the electronic device of claim 1 [i.e., (see claim 1 above)], wherein the processor controls the encrypted image to be stored in a cloud server, and, when necessary, accesses the cloud server and restores the encrypted image to a normal image.
Bergeron does not disclose;
wherein the processor controls the encrypted image to be stored in a cloud server, and, when necessary, accesses the cloud server and restores the encrypted image to a normal image.
However, RAD discloses;
a processor controls an encrypted image to be stored in a cloud server [i.e., images 139 can be encrypted and stored in a cloud storage 106 (see figure 1), (page 3, para 0043)], and, when necessary, accesses the cloud server and restores the encrypted image to a normal image [i.e., when a client application 142 requests an image from the receive service 118, the encryption service 127 can retrieve the image in an encrypted form from the cloud storage 106 and decrypt the image (page 3, para 0043), (see figure 1)].
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings of Bergeron by adapting the teachings of RAD to make application fast and reliable (See RAD; page 1, para 0002).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
KYAKUNO (US 2019/0199511 A1) discloses an imaging module comprising: an imaging device which converts an input optical image into image data; an encryption device which encrypts the image data by a homomorphic encryption method; and an interface which outputs encrypted image data received from the encryption device.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SYED A RONI whose telephone number is (571)270-7806. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00-5:00 pm (EST).
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, Jeffrey L Nickerson can be reached at (469) 295-9235. 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.
/SYED A RONI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2432
Prosecution Insights