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 .
Contents of this rejection:
35 U.S.C. 101 interpretation and explanation
Double Patenting rejections
Prior Art Rejections
35 U.S.C. 112 rejections
Relevant Prior Art
Note: Certain prior art cited but not relied on is provided in the parent application
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 1 and 8 (as well as all dependent claims) 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.
Claims 1 and 8 recite the term “clinically relevant region”, but this is a term of degree. There is nothing in the claim that defines what “clinically relevant” is. As such, the Examiner will consider it as any portion of the representation data.
Further, these claims recite the term “substantially” preserves, but this too is a term of degree. It is not clear what substantially means. As such, the Examiner will consider this to be any form of preservation.
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 and 8 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 8, and 16 of parent case 17/089622. Further claims 1 and 8 recite substantially similar subject matter as claim 1 of parent case 18/810295. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the present claims are simply a broader version of the parent application. The parent application teaches each and every limitation of the above claims.
Claim Interpretation - 35 USC § 101
The present claims are not subject to a 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection because they do not fall under one of the enumerated groupings of mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing human activity, or mental processes. The claims are directed towards anonymizing clinically data by processing image representation data. This cannot be said to be a mathematical concept, nor is it fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions). It would also be unreasonable to state that this can be performed in the human mind, as it goes beyond an observation, evaluation, judgement, or opinion.
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 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nokia (EP3451209A1), hereinafter “Nokia,” in view of Cao (cited on PTO-892).
Regarding claim 1, Nokia discloses a method of anonymizing clinical data (Abstract discloses that Nokia is directed towards an apparatus comprising at least one processor, and at least one memory including computer program code, wherein the at least one memory and the computer program code are configured, with the at least one processor, to: train, using a set of training images a generative model network and a discriminator model network to generate a generic image of anonymizing an input image whilst maintaining unprocessed a condition and/or feature; and infer from the input image using the generative model network an output anonymized image) comprising:
receiving a model of representation data corresponding to a body part, the representation data comprising a clinically relevant region and an anonymization region (Paragraphs 2 and 3 disclose that the image is representation data of a body parts including faces and body parts anonymized to prevent the image from being associated with a specific person. P57 and P58 further disclose that the image is of a person and the apparatus is trained on a region identifier using a network by using input photographs. A specific example is P35 which shows that there is a part of the face, such as a mouth or nose that are not anonymized, so this is the clinically relevant region, and the eyes are anonymized, thus making it the anonymization region. The mouth is the oral cavity and the eyes are outside of it);
extracting, from the representation data, clinical representation data corresponding to the clinically relevant region of the representation data (A specific example is P35 which shows that there is a part of the face, such as a mouth or nose that are not anonymized, so this is the clinically relevant region, and the eyes are anonymized, thus making it the anonymization region These are anatomical features);
generating artificial representation data corresponding to the anonymization regino of the representation data (As above, the eyes are at a specific position on the face. This is structure representation and it is in the anonymization region. The landmark is the position of the face, as it is a location with respect to the nose and the mouth);
creating, based at least on the clinical representation data and the artificial representation data, anonymized representation data that substantially preserves the clinically relevant region (See above and Fig. 6).
However, Nokia does not teach:
that the model is three-dimensional.
However, Cao, Page 3, Section 2.1 discloses that multilinear models in facial expression tracking and transferring use three-dimensional face scans.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the 2D images of Nokia to include common 3D data that is used in similar processes to achieve the results of Cao.
Regarding claims 2-4, As discussed in the rejection to claim 1, Cao discloses 3D images, and the Nokia figures cited disclose 2D images. Further, looking at Fig. 9 of Cao, this shows a 2D image, which transitions to 3D representation data, and back to a 2D image.
Claims 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nokia (EP3451209A1), hereinafter “Nokia,” in view of Cao (cited on PTO-892) in view of Ma.
Nokia and Cao do teach that the data is a 3D anonymization representation (which is deformable because it changes shape while preserving structural properties, addressing claim 7), but does not teach:
a plurality of frames that depict the transition between the first pose and the second pose.
However Ma does teach:
a plurality of frames that depict the transition between the first pose and the second pose (Fig. 1 a change in pose from a condition image).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Nokia to include the ability to change poses to be able to target more clinical relevant areas. Having only one pose does not allow for a full analysis of the face presented in Nokia.
Claims 8, 9, 11, 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nokia (EP3451209A1), hereinafter “Nokia,” in view of Ma (cited on PTO-892).
Regarding claim 8 and 9, Nokia discloses a method of anonymizing clinical data (Abstract discloses that Nokia is directed towards an apparatus comprising at least one processor, and at least one memory including computer program code, wherein the at least one memory and the computer program code are configured, with the at least one processor, to: train, using a set of training images a generative model network and a discriminator model network to generate a generic image of anonymizing an input image whilst maintaining unprocessed a condition and/or feature; and infer from the input image using the generative model network an output anonymized image) comprising:
receiving representation data corresponding to a body part, the representation data comprising a clinically relevant region and an anonymization region (Paragraphs 2 and 3 disclose that the image is representation data of a body parts including faces and body parts anonymized to prevent the image from being associated with a specific person. P57 and P58 further disclose that the image is of a person and the apparatus is trained on a region identifier using a network by using input photographs. A specific example is P35 which shows that there is a part of the face, such as a mouth or nose that are not anonymized, so this is the clinically relevant region, and the eyes are anonymized, thus making it the anonymization region. The mouth is the oral cavity and the eyes are outside of it);
extracting, from the representation data, clinical representation data corresponding to the clinically relevant region of the representation data (A specific example is P35 which shows that there is a part of the face, such as a mouth or nose that are not anonymized, so this is the clinically relevant region, and the eyes are anonymized, thus making it the anonymization region These are anatomical features);
generating artificial representation data corresponding to the anonymization region of the representation data (As above, the eyes are at a specific position on the face. This is structure representation and it is in the anonymization region. The landmark is the position of the face, as it is a location with respect to the nose and the mouth);
creating, based at least on the clinical representation data and the artificial representation data (See above and Fig. 6);
anonymized representation data that substantially preserves the clinically relevant region (See above).
However, Nokia does not teach (this addresses claim 9 as well):
a first frame corresponding to the body part in a first pose; and
a second frame corresponding to the body part transitioning from the first pose to a second pose.
However, Ma, which deals with pose guided person generation networks, shows at least in Fig. 1 a change in pose from a condition image.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Nokia to include the ability to change poses to be able to target more clinical relevant areas. Having only one pose does not allow for a full analysis of the face presented in Nokia.
Regarding claim 12, Ma discloses that the first and second pose are body parts (See at least Fig. 1).
Claims 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nokia (EP3451209A1), hereinafter “Nokia,” in view of Ma (cited on PTO-892) in view of Cao.
Regarding claim 10, neither Nokia nor Ma explicitly disclose that the representation data is 3D. It appears that it is in Ma, but since it is not explicitly discloses, for the purposes of expediting compact prosecution, the Examiner will bring in a new reference.
Cao, Page 3, Section 2.1 discloses that multilinear models in facial expression tracking and transferring use three-dimensional face scans.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the 2D images of Nokia to include common 3D data that is used in similar processes to achieve the results of Cao.
Regarding claim 11, Cao Page 16, Section 4.4 shows that the data is video data.
Relevant Prior Art
Sun (cited on PTO-892) discloses as more and more personal photos are shared and tagged in social media, avoiding privacy risks such as unintended recognition, becomes increasingly challenging. We propose a new hybrid approach to obfuscate identities in photos by head replacement. Our approach com bines state of the art parametric face synthesis with latest advances in Generative Adversarial Networks (GAN) for data-driven image synthesis. On the one hand, the parametric part of our method gives us control over the facial parameters and allows for explicit manipulation of the identity. On the other hand, the data-driven aspects allow for adding fine details and overall realism as well as seamless blending into the scene context. In our experiments we show highly realistic output of our system that improves over the previous state of the art in obfuscation rate while preserving a higher similarity to the original image content.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ARYAN E WEISENFELD whose telephone number is (571)272-6602. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
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, Angela Ortiz can be reached at 5712721206. 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.
ARYAN E. WEISENFELD
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3689
/ARYAN E WEISENFELD/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3663
Prosecution Insights