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 § 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.
It is noted that claims 1-15 are considered eligible subject matter. Even if the claims could be considered an abstract idea, the claims contain limitations that provide a practical application, i.e. surveillance.
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 conflicting claims 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); 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 nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) 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 www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-15 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-5, 7-11, 13, 13 (8)- 13(11), respectively of U.S. Patent No. 12094250. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of the application are broader versions of the patent.
Claim 1 of the application’s “An image processing apparatus comprising: at least one memory storing instructions; and at least one processor configured to execute the instructions to:” corresponds to “An image processing apparatus comprising: at least one memory storing one or more instructions; and at least one processor configured to execute the one or more instructions to: “ of the claim 1 of the patent, “detect a person from at least one acquired video frame; determine whether the detected person satisfies a predetermined condition including a condition that the detected person is indicated in a permission list;” of the application corresponds to “detect a person from the acquired video frame; determine whether the detected person satisfies a predetermined condition including a condition that the detected person is indicated in a permission list;” of the patent, “in a case in which the predetermined condition has not been satisfied, determine a degree of suspiciousness of the detected person;” of the application corresponds to “in a case in which the predetermined condition has not been satisfied …determine a degree of suspiciousness of the detected person;” of the patent, “in a case in which the degree is equal to or more than a threshold value, emphasize an image region including the detected person;” of the application corresponds to “ in a case in which the degree of suspiciousness is equal to or more than a threshold value, processing of emphasizing the image region including the detected person” of the patent, “and in a case in which the degree is smaller than the threshold value, make the detected person more difficult to identify in the image region” of the application corresponds to “and in a case in which the degree of suspiciousness is smaller than the threshold value, processing of making the detected person more difficult to identify in the image region” of the patent. Claims 2-4 of the application map word for word to claims 2-4 of the patent. Claims 5 of the application maps word for word to the patent except in claim 5 “the processor is configured to execute instructions in a case which the predetermined condition has not been satisfied,” corresponds to “the first treatment processing” of claim 5 of the patent and “in a case in which the predetermined condition has not been satisfied…….perform…first treatment processing” of claim 1 of the patent.
Claim 6 of the application’s “An image processing method executed by a computer, the method comprising: detecting a person from at least one acquired video frame; determining whether the detected person satisfies a predetermined condition including a condition that the detected person is indicated in a permission list;” corresponds to ” A control method executed by a computer and comprising: …detect a person from the acquired video frame; determining whether the detected person satisfies a predetermined condition including a condition that the detected person is indicated in a permission list;” of claim 7 of the patent, “in a case in which the predetermined condition has not been satisfied, determining a degree of suspiciousness of the detected person;” of the application corresponds to “ in a case in which the predetermined condition has not been satisfied such that the detected person is not in the permission list:… determining a degree of suspiciousness of the detected person;” of the patent, “in a case in which the degree is equal to or more than a threshold value, emphasizing an image region including the detected person;” of the application corresponds to “in a case in which the degree of suspiciousness is equal to or more than a threshold value, processing of emphasizing the image region including the detected person;” of the patent, and “and in a case in which the degree is smaller than the threshold value, making the detected person more difficult to identify in the image region” of the application corresponds to “in a case in which the degree of suspiciousness is smaller than the threshold value, processing of making the detected person more difficult to identify in the image region” of the patent. Claims 7-9 of the application correspond word for word to claims 8-10 of the patent, and claim 10 of the application corresponds to claim 11 of the patent in the same way claim 5 of the application correspond to claim 5 of the patent.
Claim 11 of the application’s “a non-transitory computer readable medium storing a program that causes a computer to” corresponds to “ A non-transitory storage medium storing a program causing a computer to execute the control method according to” of the patent, and the steps of claim 11 corresponds to “method according to claim 7” of the patent, mapped equivalently to the steps of claim 6 of the application to the steps of claim 7 of the patent. Claims 12-14 of the application correspond to claims 8-10 of the patent, in which the only difference is that claims 8-10 of the patent depend on a the method claim instead of the CRM claim. Given that the method is carried out by the CRM of claim 11 of the application, applying the claimed method steps of the patent equivalently to the computer readable medium are obvious. The same applies for claim 15 of the application to claim 11 of the patent, with the equivalent mapping of claim 5 of the application to claim 5 of the patent.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 7/31/2024 fails to comply with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97, 1.98 and MPEP § 609 because pages 3-8 do not comply.
CFR 1.98 Content of information disclosure statement.
(a) Any information disclosure statement filed under § 1.97 shall include the items listed in paragraphs (a)(1), (a)(2) and (a)(3) of this section.
(1) A list of all patents, publications, applications, or other information submitted for consideration by the Office. U.S. patents and U.S. patent application publications must be listed in a section separately from citations of other documents. Each page of the list must include:
(i) The application number of the application in which the information disclosure statement is being submitted;
(ii) A column that provides a space, next to each document to be considered, for the examiner’s initials; and
(iii) A heading that clearly indicates that the list is an information disclosure statement.
It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered as to the merits. Applicant is advised that the date of any re-submission of any item of information contained in this information disclosure statement or the submission of any missing element(s) will be the date of submission for purposes of determining compliance with the requirements based on the time of filing the statement, including all certification requirements for statements under 37 CFR 1.97(e). See MPEP § 609.05(a). It is noted many of the references are repeated throughout the IDS. Please consolidate entries and provide appropriate formatting.
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.
Claims 1, 2, 5, 6, 7, 10-12 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2014028/2679 (Kohlenberg et al) in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 201702000044 (Lee et al).
Regarding claim 6, Kohlenberg et al discloses an image processing method (fig. 6) executed by a computer (fig. 1, item 102, 110), the method comprising: detecting a person from at least one acquired video frame (fig. 6, item 602, page 2, paragraph 22); determining whether the detected person satisfies a predetermined condition including a condition that the detected person is indicated in a permission list, i.e. the detected person is an identified person (fig. 6, item 604) indicated in the list of fig. 8 that allows permission (or not); in a case in which the predetermined condition has not been satisfied (fig. 6, item 604, “YES” to unidentified and thus, not identified), applying a default policy (fig. 6, item 614). Kohlenberg et al discloses the default policy can range in many different policies (page 5, paragraph 38).
Kohlenberg et al does not disclose expressly a policy for showing a frame of detected persons is by determining a degree of suspiciousness of the detected person; in a case in which the degree is equal to or more than a threshold value, emphasizing an image region including the detected person; and in a case in which the degree is smaller than the threshold value, making the detected person more difficult to identify in the image region
Lee et al discloses. a policy for showing a frame of detected persons is by determining a degree of suspiciousness of the detected person by determining if the person is suspicious or not (page 5, paragraph 82); in a case in which the degree is equal to or more than a threshold value, i.e. the person is suspicious (page 5, paragraph 85), emphasizing an image region including the detected person (fig.4, item 430, suspect is highlighted 435); and in a case in which the degree is smaller than the threshold value, i.e. the person is not suspicious, making the detected person more difficult to identify in the image region (fig. 4, item 430, other person is greyed out).
Kohlenberg et al and Lee et al are combinable because they are from the same field of endeavor, i.e. subject display in images.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to highlight/ make more difficult to identify individuals.
The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to provide a more user-friendly system by drawing attention to certain individuals.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine the method of Kohlenberg et al with the modification of Lee et al to obtain the invention as specified in claim 6
Claims 1 and 11 are rejected for the same reasons as claim 6. Thus, the arguments analogous to that presented above for claim 6 are equally applicable to claims 1 and 11. Claims 1 and 11 distinguish from claim 6 only in that claim 1 is an image processing apparatus claim, comprising: at least one memory storing instructions; and at least one processor configured to execute the instructions to carry out the method of claim 6, and claim 11 is a non-transitory computer-readable medium claim, storing a program that causes a computer to carry out the method of claim 6. Kohlenberg et al teaches further this feature, i.e. an image processing apparatus (fig. 1) comprising: at least one memory storing instructions (fig. 1, item 114); and at least one processor (fig. 1, item 110) configured to execute the instructions to carry out the method (fig. 6), and a non-transitory computer-readable medium (Fig. 1, item 114) storing a program that causes a computer (fig. 1, item 102) to carry out the method (fig. 6).
Regarding claim 7, Kohlenberg et al discloses the permission list (fig. 8) associates a person and a place with each other (fig. 8, items 802 associated with items 804), and the predetermined condition further includes a condition that a place where the detected person is captured is associated with the person in the permission list because the location is determined according to the personal device being at the location (page 5, paragraph 42).
Regarding claim 10, Kohlenberg et al discloses in a case in which the predetermined condition has not been satisfied (fig. 6, item 604, “YES”), performs a policy (fig. 6, item 614), including treatment processing is any one of: processing of replacing the image region including the detected person with a background, processing of filling the image region including the detected person with a predetermined color, processing of replacing the image region including the detected person with a background and superimposing a predetermined mark on the image region, and processing of blending the image region including the detected person with a background, i.e. blurring the face (page 5, paragraph 38). Lee et al0 discloses filling the region with a predetermined color (fig. 4, item 430).
Claims 2 and 12 are rejected for the same reasons as claim 7. Thus, the arguments analogous to that presented above for claim 7 are equally applicable to claims 2 and 12. Claims 2 and 12 distinguish from claim 7 only in that they have different dependencies, both of which have been previously rejected. Therefore, prior art applies.
Claims 5 and 15 are rejected for the same reasons as claim 10. Thus, the arguments analogous to that presented above for claim 10 are equally applicable to claims 5 and 15. Claims 5 and 15 distinguish from claim 10 only in that they have different dependencies, both of which have been previously rejected. Therefore, prior art applies.
Claims 3, 8 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kohlenberg et al in view of Lee et al, as applied to claims 1, 6 and 11 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication NO. 20170046891 (Trivelpiece et al).
Regarding claim 8, Kohlenberg et al (as modified by Lee et al) discloses all of the claimed elements as set forth above and incorporated herein by reference.
Kohlenberg et al (as modified by Lee et al) does not disclose expressly the permission list associates a person and a level with each other, and the predetermined condition includes a condition that a level associated with the detected person is equal to or more than a surveillance level of a place where the detected person is captured.
Trivelpiece et al discloses the permission list associates a person and a level with each other, a security level (page 4, paragraph 38) and the predetermined condition includes a condition that a level associated with the detected person is equal to or more than a surveillance level of a place where the detected person is captured (page 4, paragraph 38).
Kohlenberg et al (as modified by Lee et al) and Trivelpiece et al are combinable because they are from the same field of endeavor, i.e. surveillance systems.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to allow recognition to depend on security level.
The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to provide a more secure system by allowing secure people with preference.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine the method of Kohlenberg et al (as modified by Lee et al) with the secure access of Trivelpiece et al to obtain the invention as specified in claim 8.
Claims 3 and 13 are rejected for the same reasons as claim 8. Thus, the arguments analogous to that presented above for claim 8 are equally applicable to claims 3 and 13. Claims 3 and 13 distinguish from claim 8 only in that they have different dependencies, both of which have been previously rejected. Therefore, prior art applies.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4, 9 and 14 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 4, 9 and 14 contain allowable subject matter regarding the claimed level indicated in association with the person in the permission list is determined by either one, or both, of an amount and a kind of personal information provided by the person in the claimed permission list, the claimed permission list being utilized as claimed.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Kathleen Yuan Dulaney whose telephone number is (571)272-2902. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9AM-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, Emily Terrell can be reached at 5712703717. 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.
/KATHLEEN Y DULANEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2666 5/4/2026
Prosecution Insights