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 .
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 2, 6, and 9 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.
In regard to claim 2, there is insufficient antecedent basis for “the location of the system”.
In regard to claim 6, there is insufficient antecedent basis for “the bitstream”.
In regard to claim 9, there is insufficient antecedent basis for “the supplemental enhancement information (SEI) stream.”
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) 1-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Matusek et al. (US 2020/0184103).
In regard to claim 1, Matusek disclosed an image transmission system with privacy protection comprising:
a privacy request processor, the privacy request processor receiving a request to secure at least one object type in an image prior to transmission of the image to a receiving system; Matusek [0097], [0112]
a camera generating image data; Matusek [0015], [0027]
an object detector receiving the image data from the camera and processing the image data to identify at least one predetermined object type in the image data; Matusek [0024], [0027], [0038], [0057], [0097]-[0098]
an object scrambler, the object scrambler receiving a set of protected objects from the privacy request processor and receiving the image data with identified objects of the predetermined object type, the object scrambler obscuring the image data for any identified objects identified as protected objects; and Matusek [0024], [0027], [0038], [0057], [0097]-[0098]
an encoder, the encoder receiving the image data with obscured protected objects and generating encoded bitstream therefrom. Matusek [0098], [0105]-[0106]
In regard to claim 2, Matusek disclosed the image transmission system of claim 1, wherein the at least one object type to secure is determined at least in part by the location of the system. Matusek [0078]
In regard to claim 3, Matusek disclosed the image transmission system of claim 1, wherein the privacy request processor has a default set of object types to secure. Matusek [0030], [0038]
In regard to claim 4, Matusek disclosed the image transmission system of claim 1, wherein the privacy request processor receives a set of object types to secure from a service provider. Matuesk [0080], [0083], [0114]
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) 5-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matusek in view of Aflaki Beni et al. (WO 2021/053261 A1).
In regard to claim 5, Matusek failed to disclose wherein the encoded bitstream includes parameters related to the applied privacy protection used to obscure the image data.
However, Aflaki Beni disclosed wherein the encoded bitstream includes parameters related to the applied privacy protection used to obscure the image data. Aflaki Beni signaled in the bitstream a parameter set. See Aflaki Beni page 23 lines 15-35
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include privacy encryption parameters in Matusek’s bitstream to allow for secure transmission of the bitstream.
In regard to claim 6, Aflaki Beni disclosed wherein the parameters include a flag indicating whether the bitstream provides privacy protection. Aflaki Beni page 23 line 24
In regard to claim 7, Aflaki Beni disclosed wherein the flag is signaled in one of a picture level, a sub-picture level, a slice level, a sequence level, or a group of frames level. Aflaki Beni page 23 lines 15-24
In regard to claim 8, Aflaki Beni disclosed wherein the parameters include signaling information in each picture header. Aflaki Beni page 23 lines 15-24
In regard to claim 9, Aflaki Beni disclosed wherein the parameters are signaled in the supplemental enhancement information (SEI) stream. Aflaki Beni page 29 lines 5-6
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jeffrey R. Swearingen whose telephone number is (571)272-3921. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00 am - 5:00 pm.
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, Oscar Louie can be reached at 571-270-1684. 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.
Jeffrey R. Swearingen
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2445
/Jeffrey R Swearingen/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2445