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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Invention I (claims 1, 3, 4, 11 and 13) in the reply filed on June 27, 2026 is acknowledged. The application has pending claims 1-11 and 13 (withdrawn claims 2 and 5–10 are withdrawn from further consideration). Claim 12 has been canceled.
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the current abstract runs as a single unbroken sentence chain describing storing, detecting, masking, and encoding steps plus the wherein clause, that makes it difficult to quickly ascertain the nature of the technical disclosure, and require a rewritten abstract that breaks the concepts down into clearer sentences. The abstract also begins with "Provided is a method," which MPEP § 608.01(b) discourages in favor of a phrase that avoids legal phraseology and directly states the disclosed subject matter. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: The drawings contain FIG. 13, but Pages. 5-6 of the Brief Description of the Drawings describe only FIGS. 1–12. The Detailed Description likewise concludes after discussing FIG. 12 and never refers to FIG. 13. Applicant is required to amend the Brief Description of the Drawings to provide a brief description of FIG. 13 and amend the Detailed Description to appropriately refer to FIG. 13. Alternatively, if FIG. 13 is unnecessary or duplicative, Applicant may cancel FIG. 13 in accordance with 37 C.F.R. § 1.121(d). No new matter may be introduced.
Appropriate correction is required.
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: Page. 7, Line 3, “the concept of the present disclosure are susceptible” should read “is susceptible”; and “the concept of the present disclosure are to cover” should read “is intended to cover” or equivalent.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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 3-4 and 11 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.
Claim 3 recites the limitation “-- the second video frame is an (N+1)th frame from the first video frame;” in claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The claim does not previously define or establish an antecedent basis for "N" nor does it identify N as a preset, predetermined, or otherwise ascertainable value. It is unclear what N represents (e.g., a fixed system parameter, a variable set by a user, or a value derived from another claimed step), rendering the metes and bounds of the claim unclear to one of ordinary skill in the art. Clarification is required, for example by amending the claim to recite "wherein N is a preset number of frames" or similar definite language. Because claim 4 depends from claim 3, it inherits this ambiguity, fails to cure the deficiency.
Regarding claim 4, the phrase "as an absolute value of the difference vector" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). The term “as” is amenable to multiple reasonable interpretations, including "when", "while", "because", or "in the same manner that" each of which would result in different claim scope. In addition, the term “as” does not clearly indicate whether the threshold comparison is a triggering condition, a temporal condition, or another relationship. Because the claim does not make clear whether "as" denotes a conditional trigger or a comparative/ temporal relationship, the claim is indefinite. The disclosure appears to intend “when” or “in response to determining that”.
Additionally, claim 4 depends from claim 3 and relies on "N" which is itself indefinite for the reasons set forth above with respect to claim 3, further compounding the ambiguity of claim 4's recitation that "M" is "a value smaller than N". Accordingly, one of ordinary skill cannot determine with reasonable certainty which numerical quantity is changed from N to M or the precise operation required by claim 4. This ambiguity is reinforced by the specification: paragraph [0089] states that “a difference vector calculation interval N may be set to M that is smaller than N” whereas claim 4 instead states that the number of frames in which the position is predicted is set to M. Paragraph [0090] likewise describes calculating the difference vector at an interval of 15 frames instead of 30 frames. Applicant may clarify whether M represents a reduced difference-vector calculation interval, a reduced prediction interval, or a selected number of predicted intermediate frames.
Regarding claim 11, the phrase "as a preset situation is detected, the masking processing is not performed on an object of interest area related to the preset situation" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). As with claim 4, the term “as” renders the conditional trigger for this limitation unclear. Furthermore, it is unclear whether "an object of interest area related to the preset situation" refers to the same "object of interest area" recited in parent claim 1, or to some other, unclaimed area. Most significantly, claim 1 recites the step of "performing masking processing on an object of interest area including the detected object of interest" as an apparently unconditional, positively-required step of the method. Claim 11 then recites that this same masking processing "is not performed" under a specified condition. Because claim 11 purports to negate a step that its parent claim recites as mandatory, without amending claim 1 to render that step conditional, the resulting scope of claim 11, and its relationship to claim 1, is unclear. It cannot be determined whether infringement of claim 11 requires omission of a step that claim 1 requires be performed, creating uncertainty as to the actual metes and bounds of the claimed method. Although paragraphs [0124–0125] explain that masking is performed normally and is not performed when the preset situation is detected, the claim does not clearly recite that temporal sequence or identify the particular event-related object whose masking is omitted. Applicant should clarify whether masking is omitted for the same object that caused or is involved in the detected situation, whether masking continues for other objects or areas, and whether the conditional language means “when” or “in response to detecting”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1, 3-4, 11, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception without significantly more.
This rejection has been made in accordance with the current USPTO subject matter eligibility framework, including MPEP §§ 2103–2106.07, the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, the October 2019 Patent Eligibility Guidance Update, and the August 4, 2025 USPTO memorandum titled "Reminders on evaluating subject matter eligibility of claims under 35 U.S.C. § 101." and the updated guidance concerning Ex parte Desjardins. The claims have been evaluated under the broadest reasonable interpretation, and the claims have been considered as a whole.
Step 1: Statutory Category
Independent claim 1 is directed to a method and therefore falls within the statutory category of a process. Independent claim 13 is directed to an apparatus comprising a memory and a processor and therefore falls within the statutory category of a machine. Accordingly, the analysis proceeds to Step 2A.
Step 2A, Prong One (Judicial Exception)
Independent claim 1 recites estimating a position of the object of interest in a video frame located between two or more video frames for which a difference vector of the object of interest has been calculated, based on the object of interest detected in the two or more video frames. This limitation recites a mathematical concept, namely calculating a difference vector representing positional change of a detected object between two frames, and using that difference vector to mathematically derive (interpolate) the object's position in intervening frames.
The specification confirms this mathematical concept, disclosing that the position is calculated by dividing the difference vector MV by the number of frames N, and explicitly reciting the governing formula: RN(x,y) = R1(x,y) + MV × (n/N) [Equation 2]. The claim thus recites a mathematical formula/calculation, which falls within the "Mathematical Concepts" grouping of abstract ideas identified in MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(I).
Claim 3 further recites calculating a difference vector representing a difference between a position of a first object of interest... within a first video frame and... within a second video frame, and predicting a position of the first object of interest in a video frame between the first video frame and the second video frame using the difference vector. These limitations recite the same mathematical calculation and prediction in more granular form and do not alter the abstract character of the claimed process.
Claim 4 further recites a mathematical comparison step: “when an absolute value of the difference vector is greater than or equal to a predetermined first threshold, [setting] the number of video frames in which the position... is predicted... to M”, which is itself a mathematical relationship (a threshold comparison governing an interval variable) and does not integrate any additional technical element.
Claim 11 recites when a preset situation is detected, the masking processing may not be performed, which recites an evaluative/observational step (detecting a situation) coupled with a conditional decision not to act; this is squarely within the "mental processes" grouping of abstract ideas, as it can be performed as an observation-based judgment.
Independent claim 13 recites substantially the same abstract idea in apparatus form, reciting a generic "processor" configured to perform the identical storing, detecting, masking (mathematical position-estimation), and encoding steps. Merely implementing the same mathematical calculation using a generic processor and memory does not avoid the judicial exception. This is consistent with the reasoning in SAP America, Inc. v. InvestPic, LLC, where the Federal Circuit found that claims directed to selecting, analyzing, and mathematically manipulating data are abstract regardless of the particular mathematical technique employed, and in Digitech Image Techs., LLC v. Elecs. for Imaging, Inc., where claims to organizing and manipulating information through mathematical correlations were found abstract absent a specific improvement in how the underlying data is captured or physically processed.
Accordingly, claims 1, 3-4, 11, and 13 recite an abstract idea (a mathematical concept, and, for claim 11, a mental process) under Step 2A, Prong One.
Step 2A, Prong Two (Practical Application)
The additional elements, considered individually and in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
The recited "camera", "processor", and "memory" (claim 13) are generic computer components used to obtain, store, and act upon data. The claims recite "storing video data captured by a camera" and "encoding the video data... to generate a video stream"; these are generic data-gathering and data-output steps that use conventional camera and video-encoding technology at a high level of generality; the claims do not recite any particular improvement to how a camera physically captures, digitizes, or encodes video, nor any specific unconventional encoder architecture.
The claims do not recite a particular improvement to computer or imaging technology, comparable to Ex parte Desjardins. They do not modify hardware architecture, memory allocation, or encoding-hardware design in a manner that improves the technical operation of the video processing apparatus itself. While the specification asserts a benefit of reduced hardware resource consumption and data throughput, this asserted benefit flows directly and only from performing fewer detection operations via the underlying mathematical interpolation; it is the result of applying the abstract mathematical concept itself, not a separate technical mechanism (e.g., a specific memory-management scheme, a specific circuit design, or a specific compression architecture) that independently improves the apparatus. This is consistent with Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., where asserted efficiency benefits flowing merely from the abstract data-analysis method itself did not confer eligibility.
This analysis is also consistent with Recentive Analytics, Inc. v. Fox Corp., where the Federal Circuit held that applying a known mathematical/ machine-learning technique to a new field (there, forecasting) is a field-of-use limitation rather than an integration of the abstract idea into a practical application. Here, applying a difference-vector interpolation formula to the field of privacy masking in surveillance video is similarly a field-of-use limitation.
Accordingly, the claims do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application under Step 2A, Prong Two.
Step 2B (Inventive Concept)
The additional elements, considered both individually and as an ordered combination, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
The claims use generic computer/ camera components to perform ordinary functions, including obtaining video (camera), storing data (memory), and encoding data into a stream (processor/ encoder); all recited functionally and at a high level of generality, consistent with well-understood, routine, and conventional video-surveillance functions as evidenced by the specification's own background discussion of conventional privacy-masking systems.
The ordered combination also does not provide an inventive concept: store video, detect an object, mathematically calculate a difference vector, mathematically predict intervening positions, and encode the result. This ordered combination follows directly from the abstract mathematical idea itself and adds nothing beyond generic data collection and output.
Dependent claims 3-4, and 11 recite additional mathematical refinements (a more granular recitation of the difference-vector calculation, a threshold-based comparison adjusting interval variable M, and a conditional decision to withhold masking) and a mental evaluative step (detecting a preset situation), none of which recite any additional element directed to improving the underlying camera, encoder, or processing hardware. These limitations merely narrow the abstract idea and do not add significantly more.
Independent claim 13 recites a generic processor/ memory counterpart using basic computing logic to perform substantially the same operations as claim 1. The recitation of generic hardware executing a mathematical position-estimation formula does not transform the abstract idea into patent-eligible subject matter.
Accordingly, claims 1, 3-4, 11, and 13 are directed to a judicial exception without significantly more and are therefore rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
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.
Claims 1, 3 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Altuev (Altuev et al, US 2019/0261045 A1, 2019), as provided by Applicant’s disclosure filed on April 04th 2025.
Regarding claim 1, Altuev teaches a method of processing video data, comprising:
storing video data captured by a camera;
( [0011], [Fig. 4, Step 200]: Altuev teaches obtaining video data from at least one video-surveillance camera and storing the received video data in a memory unit or video archive.)
detecting an object of interest from a plurality of video frames of the stored video data;
( [0003], [0040-0046]: Altuev teaches identifying a selected object, such as a person, human face, vehicle, or license-plate number, in stored video; identifying first and last video frames in which the selected object is visible; and determining locations and trajectories of moving objects using video analytics, sensors, detectors, or server-calculated trajectory information. )
performing masking processing on an object of interest area including the detected object of interest; and
( [0011], [0025], [0042–0044], [0050–0051], [0057–0059], [Fig. 2-4]: Altuev teaches setting reference areas that obscure the selected object in video frames, calculating corresponding obscuring areas for additional frames, and generating modified video in which the selected object is masked by the reference and calculated areas. Altuev provides an example in which a person is rendered unrecognizable by a black rectangular masking area. )
encoding the video data which is subjected to the masking processing to generate a video stream,
( [0023–0025], [0050]: Altuev teaches receiving video data from cameras, storing it in the archive, and then storing a “modified video” that includes reference and calculated areas masking the selected object on each frame in the set interval. In typical CCTV systems, the video data from cameras is encoded into a video stream for storage and playback; Altuev’s modified video stored in the archive is therefore an encoded video stream subjected to masking processing. )
wherein the masking processing is performed by estimating a position of the object of interest in a video frame located between two or more video frames for which a difference vector of the object of interest has been calculated, based on the object of interest detected in the two or more video frames.
( [0010–0011], [0016–0018], [0042], [0044–0046], [0057–0059]: Altuev teaches estimating the position of the selected object in intermediate frames by interpolating the corresponding masking-area locations between known endpoint locations. When Altuev’s interpolation is implemented using the endpoint displacement or difference vector discussed above, the estimated intermediate positions are based on that vector. The calculated masking areas are applied in each intermediate frame, and the modified video masks the selected object throughout the interval from the first to the last frame. )
Regarding claim 3, Altuev teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the performing of the masking processing on the object of interest area including the detected object of interest includes:
calculating a difference vector representing a difference between a position of a first object of interest detected within a first video frame and a position of the first object of interest detected within a second video frame, wherein the second video frame is an (N+1)th frame from the first video frame;
( [0010–0011], [0016–0018], [0042], [0044–0046], [0057–0058], [Figs. 1 & 4]: Altuev teaches identifying the same selected object at a first location in a first reference frame and at a second location in a later reference frame, with one or more intermediate frames located between the reference frames. Altuev teaches that the locations and trajectories of moving objects may be determined using video analytics, sensors, detectors, or server-calculated trajectory information, and that the object may be assumed to move directly and uniformly between the endpoint locations. The number of frame intervals separating the first and second reference frames may be represented by N, such that the second reference frame is an (N+1)th frame relative to the first reference frame. Calculating the positional displacement between the known first and second object locations, including its magnitude and direction, as a difference vector for implementing Altuev’s direct-and-uniform interpolation [calculating the difference vector is the required first step for interpolation].)
predicting a position of the first object of interest in a video frame between the first video frame and the second video frame using the difference vector; and
( [0010–0011], [0016–0018], [0044–0046], [0058], [Figs. 1 & 4]: Altuev teaches automatically calculating expected positions of obscuring areas in intermediate video frames between the first and second reference frames by interpolating the known locations of the endpoint reference areas. Altuev teaches performing the interpolation under an assumption that the selected object moves directly and uniformly and alternatively taking the selected object’s trajectory into account; when the endpoint positional displacement is represented by the difference vector discussed above, Altuev predicts the intermediate-frame position of the selected object by proportionally applying the difference vector according to the temporal position of the intermediate frame. )
performing masking processing on the first object of interest in a plurality of video frames from the first video frame to the second video frame.
( [0011], [0025], [0042–0044], [0046], [0050–0051], [0057–0059], [Fig. 2–4]: Altuev teaches setting reference areas that obscure the selected object in the first and second reference frames, calculating corresponding obscuring areas for the intermediate frames, and storing modified video in which the reference and calculated areas mask the selected object in each respective frame throughout the interval from the first reference frame to the second reference frame. )
Regarding claim 13, the rationale provided in the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated herein. In addition, Altuev teaches a computer system or apparatus, including CPU/ processors/ memories/ RAM/ GPU/ PROM, to execute computer programs for masking objects in a video archive [0032-0037] ). Accordingly, the method for processing video data of claim 1 corresponds to the apparatus of claim 13, and performs the steps disclosed herein. Therefore, the claims are all rejected.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 as being unpatentable over Altuev in view of Na (Na et al, US 2015/0022698 A1, 2015).
Regarding claim 4, Altuev teaches the method of claim 3,
Altuev teaches predicting intermediate object positions over an N-frame interval using the object’s displacement, but fails to expressly disclose reducing that interval based on the magnitude of the displacement vector, where Nateaches:
wherein, as an absolute value of the difference vector is greater than or equal to a predetermined first threshold, the number of video frames in which the position of the first object of interest is predicted is set to M, which is a value smaller than N.
( [0027], [0031–0038], [0045], [0047–0052], [Figs. 6–8]: Na teaches comparing sequential video frames to identify an object-specific motion vector, determining the size or magnitude of the motion vector [the magnitude of a vector is always a single, positive absolute value], and setting a photographing or frame-processing interval according to the motion vector. Na further teaches calculating the interval by dividing the object size by the motion-vector magnitude, estimating an increase or decrease in object movement speed from changes in the motion vector, and decreasing the photographing interval as appropriate. Thus, for a given object size, a greater motion-vector magnitude results in a smaller frame interval. Na also expressly teaches decreasing the photographing interval, i.e., reducing the number of frames used, once an object's movement satisfies a given condition relative to other objects, illustrating that the number of predicted/ photographed frames is set to a smaller value [M] than a baseline/ default value [N] once a vector-magnitude-based condition is met. )
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to apply Na’s motion-vector-based interval adjustment to Altuev’s intermediate-position prediction. Although Na does not expressly designate the intervals as N and M or recite a predetermined threshold separating them, selecting the original interval N when the vector magnitude is below a predetermined threshold and selecting a shorter interval M when the magnitude equals or exceeds the threshold would have been a routine and predictable implementation of Na’s motion-responsive interval control. A larger displacement over the original N-frame interval would increase the potential error in the interpolated object positions. Reducing the interval to a smaller M when the displacement-vector magnitude satisfies a predetermined threshold would have predictably provided more frequent position updates and improved the accuracy with which Altuev’s masking area follows the moving object.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 as being unpatentable over Altuev in view of Rao (Rao et al, US 2017/0076572 A1, 2017).
Regarding claim 11, Altuev teaches the method of claim 1,
Altuev teaches selectively masking an object-of-interest area in video, but fails to expressly disclose withholding the masking processing in response to detection of a preset situation, where Rao teaches:
wherein, as a preset situation is detected, the masking processing is not performed on an object of interest area related to the preset situation.
( Rao, [0003–0004], [0024–0026], [0035–0037], [0043–0051], [Fig. 5]: Rao discloses selectively controlling privacy masking of video content by detecting a preset situation, specifically “an arming of an intrusion detection system or an alarm condition". In response to detecting this situation, Rao teaches "overriding the privacy masking operations such that at least one second captured image or second captured video is not encoded with second privacy masking features". Rao notes that overriding the masking functions provides unmasked exception clips so that identifying features, such as faces or license plates in the privacy sensitive areas, remain visible to security personnel during theft or intrusion events. )
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Altuev’s selective video-masking process using Rao’s event-responsive masking override so that masking is withheld when a preset alarm or security condition is detected. Such a modification would have predictably preserved identifying information associated with the detected event, thereby improving situational awareness and facilitating verification or investigation of theft, intrusion, or other alarm conditions.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEN KUDO whose telephone number is (571)272-4498. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am - 5pm.
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, Vincent Rudolph can be reached at 571-272-8243. 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.
KEN KUDO
Examiner
Art Unit 2671
/KEN KUDO/Examiner, Art Unit 2671
/VINCENT RUDOLPH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2671
Prosecution Insights