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(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
Claim limitation “an acquisition unit”, “an image conversion unit”, and “an image determination unit” in claims 1 – 13 has/have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because it uses/they use a generic placeholder “unit” coupled with functional language “acquire”, “perform” and “determine” without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Since the claim limitation(s) invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, claim(s) 1 – 13 has/have been interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification that achieves the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
A review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation: the Specification discloses the physical structure about above units as part of camera ([0025]) and hardware/software in computer ([0027]).
If applicant wishes to provide further explanation or dispute the examiner’s interpretation of the corresponding structure, applicant must identify the corresponding structure with reference to the specification by page and line number, and to the drawing, if any, by reference characters in response to this Office action.
If applicant does not intend to have the claim limitation(s) treated under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may amend the claim(s) so that it/they will clearly not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, or present a sufficient showing that the claim recites/recite sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function to preclude application of 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
For more information, see MPEP § 2173 et seq. and Supplementary Examination Guidelines for Determining Compliance With 35 U.S.C. 112 and for Treatment of Related Issues in Patent Applications, 76 FR 7162, 7167 (Feb. 9, 2011).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 and 13 – 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Jones et al. (Japanese Patent Application Publication 2021-128499, IDS), hereinafter referred as Jones.
Regarding claim 1, Jones discloses an image processing device (Fig. 1) comprising:
an acquisition unit configured to acquire a size of a face shown in an input image or a distance from a capturing point of the input image to the face (Figs. 2B – 2C and corresponding section in pages 5 – 6, acquire face region 14); and
an image conversion unit configured to perform an anonymization process on the input image (Figs. 2D – 2E and corresponding section in pages 6 – 7, perform an anonymization process),
wherein the image conversion unit decides to perform the anonymization process based on a first method or the anonymization process based on a second method different from the first method on the face shown in the input image on the basis of the size or the distance (pages 6 – 7, determine to vary different setting and method based on face size to perform the anonymization process).
Regarding claims 13 – 15, they are corresponding to claim 1, thus, they are interpreted and rejected for the same reason set forth for claim 1.
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) 2, 5, 6 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jones in view of Sako et al. (US Patent Application Publication 2014/0112534, IDS), hereinafter referred as Sako.
Regarding claim 2 (depends on claim 1), Jones fails to explicitly disclose the device further comprising an image determination unit configured to determine whether or not the input image on which the anonymization process has been performed satisfies a predetermined requirement and perform a predetermined process on the input image on which the anonymization process has been performed when it is determined that the input image on which the anonymization process has been performed satisfies the predetermined requirement.
However, in a similar field of endeavor Sako discloses a device for face image replacement (abstract). In addition, Sako discloses the device comprising an image determination unit configured to determine whether or not the input image on which the anonymization process has been performed satisfies a predetermined requirement and perform a predetermined process on the input image on which the anonymization process has been performed when it is determined that the input image on which the anonymization process has been performed satisfies the predetermined requirement ([0041]: “detect a face photographed at a size equal to or greater than a predetermined size set in advance as a face image region”; [0043]: anonymization process).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the invention of Jones, and further comprising an image determination unit configured to determine whether or not the input image on which the anonymization process has been performed satisfies a predetermined requirement and perform a predetermined process on the input image on which the anonymization process has been performed when it is determined that the input image on which the anonymization process has been performed satisfies the predetermined requirement. The motivation for doing this is that the application of Jones can be extended to eliminate some noises.
Regarding claim 5 (depends on claim 2), Jones discloses the device wherein the predetermined process is a process of transmitting the input image on which the anonymization process has been performed to an image server through a communication means (page 4, para. 5).
Regarding claim 6 (depends on claim 1), Jones discloses the device wherein the anonymization process based on the first method is a process of concealing a face shown in the input image (Figs. 2D – 2E and corresponding section in pages 6 – 7, perform an anonymization process of concealing a face).
However, Jones fails to explicitly disclose the device wherein the anonymization process based on the second method is a process of changing a face of a person shown in the input image to a face of another person.
However, in a similar field of endeavor Sako discloses a device for face image replacement (abstract). In addition, Sako discloses the device comprising the anonymization process based on the second method is a process of changing a face of a person shown in the input image to a face of another person ([0043]: face replacement).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the invention of Jones, and the anonymization process based on the second method is a process of changing a face of a person shown in the input image to a face of another person. The motivation for doing this is that the application of Jones can be extended so that an alternative way of anonymization can be processed.
Regarding claim 11 (depends on claim 2), Jones fails to explicitly disclose the device wherein the image conversion unit does not perform the predetermined process on the input image on which the anonymization process has been performed when the image determination unit determines that the input image on which the anonymization process has been performed does not satisfy the predetermined requirement.
However, in a similar field of endeavor Sako discloses a device for face image replacement (abstract). In addition, Sako discloses wherein the image conversion unit does not perform the predetermined process on the input image on which the anonymization process has been performed when the image determination unit determines that the input image on which the anonymization process has been performed does not satisfy the predetermined requirement ([0054 - 0055]: if the image is going to be uploaded is not reliably ensured, the server 1 does not perform replacement of the natural face image in Step S112).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the invention of Jones, and the image conversion unit does not perform the predetermined process on the input image on which the anonymization process has been performed when the image determination unit determines that the input image on which the anonymization process has been performed does not satisfy the predetermined requirement. The motivation for doing this is that the application of Jones can be extended so that the process quality can be ensured.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jones in view of Sako, and in further view of Nagai et al. (Japanese Patent Application Publication 2017-187850, IDS), hereinafter referred as Nagai.
Regarding claim 3 (depends on claim 2), Jones fails to explicitly disclose the device wherein the predetermined process is a process of saving the input image on which the anonymization process has been performed as an annotation work target image.
However, in a similar field of endeavor Nagai discloses an image processing system that suppresses the deterioration of recognition accuracy and thereby can protect confidential information captured in image data (abstract). In addition, Nagai discloses a process of saving the input image on which the anonymization process has been performed as an annotation work target image (page 3, section (4): assigns a label).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the invention of Jones, and further comprising a process of saving the input image on which the anonymization process has been performed as an annotation work target image. The motivation for doing this is that the application of Jones can be extended so that the later process can be learnt to use an AI power.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jones in view of Sako, and in further view of Balogh et al. (US Patent 11,106,919), hereinafter referred as Balogh.
Regarding claim 4 (depends on claim 2), Jones fails to explicitly disclose the device wherein the predetermined process is a process of saving the input image on which the anonymization process has been performed as learning information for generating a behavior prediction model for predicting behavior of a person shown in the input image.
However, in a similar field of endeavor Balogh discloses a method for video stream processing (abstract). In addition, Balogh discloses a process has been performed as learning information for generating a behavior prediction model for predicting behavior of a person shown in the input image (col. 5, lines 12 – 20).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the invention of Jones, and the anonymization process has been performed as learning information for generating a behavior prediction model for predicting behavior of a person shown in the input image. The motivation for doing this is that the application of Jones can be extended so that more situations can be covered.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jones in view of Sako, and in further view of Kim et al. (Korean Patent 10-2364376), hereinafter referred as Kim.
Regarding claim 10 (depends on claim 2), Jones discloses the device wherein the image conversion unit performs the anonymization process based on the second method on the input image (Figs. 2D – 2E and corresponding section in pages 6 – 7, perform an anonymization process).
However, Jones fails to explicitly disclose wherein performs the process
again when the image determination unit determines that the input image on which the anonymization process has been performed does not satisfy the predetermined requirement.
However, in a similar field of endeavor Kim discloses a method for image processing (abstract). In addition, Kim discloses performs the process again when the image determination unit determines that the input image on which the process has been performed does not satisfy the predetermined requirement (page 6, para. 6, if quality condition is not satisfied, reprocess is performed).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the invention of Jones, and the anonymization process has been performed as learning information for generating a behavior prediction model for predicting behavior of a person shown in the input image. The motivation for doing this is that the application of Jones can be extended so that the quality can be ensured.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jones in view of Sako, and in further view of Suyama et al. (WIPO Patent Application Publication WO 2020-026318), hereinafter referred as Suyama.
Regarding claim 12 (depends on claim 2), Jones fails to explicitly disclose the device wherein the predetermined requirement differs according to whether the input image is an image obtained by capturing an interior of a vehicle equipped with a camera that has captured the input image or an image obtained by capturing an exterior of the vehicle.
However, in a similar field of endeavor Suyama discloses a method for driving image processing (abstract). In addition, Suyama discloses wherein the process differs according to whether the input image is an image obtained by capturing an interior of a vehicle equipped with a camera that has captured the input image or an image obtained by capturing an exterior of the vehicle (Fig. 6, [0046], in-vehicle camera may detect features (processed) for such as, for example, whether a driver is using a mobile device, whether a driver is yawning, and/or the head orientation of a driver. The out-of-vehicle video cameras may detect out-of-vehicle features 660 such as, for example, the distance between one vehicle and another, the distance between a vehicle and pedestrians, and the state of traffic signals.).
There was some teaching, suggestion, or motivation, either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art, to modify the reference or to combine reference teachings.
There was reasonable expectation of success to modify the reference or to combine reference teachings to achieve the claimed limitation (KSR scenario G).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the invention of Jones, and the predetermined requirement differs according to whether the input image is an image obtained by capturing an interior of a vehicle equipped with a camera that has captured the input image or an image obtained by capturing an exterior of the vehicle. The motivation for doing this is that the application of Jones can be extended so that various situation can be handle differently.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7 – 9 are 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.
Claim 7 discloses the device wherein acquires direction information about the face of the person shown in the input image, and wherein the image conversion unit performs the anonymization process based on the first method on the face of the person shown in the input image when the acquisition of the direction information by the acquisition unit has failed.
Claim 8 discloses the device wherein the acquisition unit further acquires direction information about the face of the person shown in the input image, and wherein the image conversion unit performs the anonymization process based on the first method on the face of the person shown in the input image when the direction information about the face of the person shown in the input image is not consistent with direction information about the face of the person shown in the input image on which the anonymization process based on the second method has been performed.
Claim 9 discloses the device wherein the image conversion unit performs the anonymization process based on the second method on a plurality of input images captured in time series and performs the anonymization process based on the first method on a face of a person shown in the plurality of input images when the face of the person tracked as the same person in the plurality of input images is not the same face in the plurality of input images on which the anonymization process has been performed.
The closet reference Funane et al. (US 2020/0034564) checks matching between the plurality of two-dimensional projection images obtained in S602 and a face image database. … The matching in this step calculates a correlation coefficient between the two-dimensional projection image obtained in S602 and the face image database, and obtains a surface area corresponding to the two-dimensional projection image having the highest correlation coefficient, as a face area. … it is allowable to use a classifier such as a neural network or support vector machine that has already learned a front image of a human face so as to define a surface area corresponding to an image with the highest probability of being in a front face direction, as the face area ([0047]).
Neither Jones nor Sako, and Funane, alone or in a combination, teaches above limitations.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to QIAN YANG whose telephone number is (571)270-7239. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday 8am-6pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Andrew Bee can be reached on 571-270-5183. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/QIAN YANG/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2677
Prosecution Insights