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 Interpretation
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.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “an image obtaining unit, a person estimating unit, a status monitoring unit, an estimation control unit, an environment estimation unit, a scene recognition unit, an environment determination unit, a state estimation unit, a state determination unit, a face detection unit, an identifier extraction unit, a person identifying unit” in claims 1, 4 and 11.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
Claim 1 is 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 1 recites at lines 13-16 “—the image to be used for the estimation processing is obtained ---------- the image is obtained “. Claim 1 also recites at line 2 “an image obtaining unit configured to obtain an image ---”. It is unclear whether the recital of “the image is obtained” at lines 13-16 (because the phrase means the image to be used is obtained (i.e is obtained again or is obtained second time) is the same image recited at line 2?. Amendments clarification are required. Claims 2-16 depending from claim 1 are also rejected.
Claim 17 is 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 17 recites at lines 9-12 “—the image to be used for the estimation processing is obtained ---------- the image is obtained as the environment--------- the image is obtained“. Claim 17 also recites at line 2 “obtaining an image including a person ---”. It is unclear whether the recital of “the image is obtained” at lines 13-16 (because the phrase means the image to be used is obtained (i.e is obtained again or is obtained second time) is the same image recited at line 2?. Amendments clarification is required. Claim 18 depending from claim 17 is also rejected.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "wherein in a case where the determination result obtained from the status monitoring unit indicates that the status-- in not an appropriate status" in lines 1-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Examiner notes that claim 8 depends from claim 1 and claim 1 only recites at lines 23-24 “wherein a determination result from the environment status unit--- “. The recital in claim 8 therefore has antecedent issues.
Claim 8 also recites at lines 3-5 “for use of the estimation processing for a predetermined threshold or more of images among a plurality of images obtained by the image obtaining unit”. The recital in claim 8 renders the claim indefinite. Claim 8 depend from claim 1 and claim 1 only recites “at line 2 “an image obtaining unit configured to obtain an image including a person;” i.e a single image and it is unclear as to how the “---a predetermined threshold or more of images among a plurality of images obtained by the image obtaining unit” would be possible as recited in claim 8 if only a single image is obtained by the image obtaining unit as recited in claim 1. Amendments/clarification are required.
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.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C 101. The claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because the broadest reasonable interpretation of “A storage medium storing a program------” encompasses a signal and signals are non-statutory. See MPEP 2106.03 I.
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.
Claims 1, 4, 8, 10 and 14-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jung et al., (US20080180539) hereafter Jung (Single reference 103 as the claimed limitations are shown/disclosed in multiple figs/embodiments).
1. Regarding claim 1 as best understood by the examiner, Jung discloses a control apparatus (figs 1-5, Abstract and paras 0083, 0139 shows and discloses an apparatus) comprising:
an image obtaining unit configured to obtain an image including a person (figs 3-5, elements 324, 420 and paras 0073-0083 an image obtaining unit configured to obtain an image 401 including a person (as seen in fig 4) meeting the claim limitations);
a person estimation unit configured to execute estimation processing to estimate information about the person based on the image and output a result of the estimation processing (figs 4-5, para 0083 shows and discloses a person estimation unit configured to execute estimation processing to estimate information about the person based on the image and output a result of the estimation processing (i.e recognition/locating the heads of the human subjects (persons) in the image as seen in fig 4) meeting the above claim limitations of a person estimation unit configured to execute estimation processing to estimate information about the person based on the image and output a result of the estimation processing);
a status monitoring unit configured to determine a use status of the estimation processing by the person estimation unit (fig 5, para 0083 shows and discloses “FIG. 5 illustrates an embodiment where the displays 440B of the image capture device 420 indicating a "Green" color-based visual indication of the anonymization policy (i.e a use status indicated by green LED), corresponding to decreasing a fidelity of facial properties and license plate properties depicted in acquired images to be indistinguishable. The decreased fidelity of the illustrated embodiment includes a decreased fidelity of facial properties of human subjects 408A, 408B, and 408C implemented big obscuring portions of their faces and/or heads. The faces and/or heads of human subjects may be located in the image using techniques known to those skilled in the art, including artificial intelligence, and/or facial recognition techniques); and
an estimation control unit configured to limit at least one of the estimation processing and the output of the result of the estimation processing by the person estimation unit based on a result of the determination of the use status by the status monitoring unit (fig 5 shows the output of the result of the estimation processing unit, para 0083 shows and discloses an estimation control unit configured to limit at least one of the estimation processing and the output of the result of the estimation processing by the person estimation unit based on a result of the determination of the use status by the status monitoring unit (fig 5 shows the Green LED status (i.e the determination of the use status)) and the result of the estimation processing (i.e faces obscured) meeting the above claim limitations),
wherein the status monitoring unit includes:
an environment estimation unit configured to estimate an environment in which the image to be used for the estimation processing is obtained including a scene recognition unit configured to recognize a type of a place as the environment in which the image is obtained (figs 4-5, paras 0082, 0110 shows and discloses an environment estimation unit configured to estimate an environment in which the image to be used for the estimation processing is obtained (i.e environment 400) including a scene recognition unit configured to recognize a type of a place as the environment in which the image is obtained (i.e the area image of geographic locale, the park--- stadium, i.e a type of the place as the environment in which h the image 405 is obtained) meeting the claim limitations); and
an environment determination unit configured to determine whether the environment estimated by the environment estimation unit is an appropriate environment for use of the estimation processing (figs 4-5, paras 0079, 0082-0084 shows and discloses an environment determination unit configured to determine whether the environment estimated by the environment estimation unit is an appropriate environment (i.e the faces in the image/environment 400 is an appropriate environment for obscuring the faces/heads according to the privacy/anonymization policy) for use of the estimation processing (i.e estimation of the faces/heads)),
wherein the environment determination unit is configured to determine whether the type of the place recognized by the scene recognition unit is an appropriate place for use of the estimation processing (figs 4-5, paras 0079, 0082-0084 shows and wherein the environment determination unit is configured to determine whether the type of the place recognized by the scene recognition unit (i.e the area image of geographic locale, the park--- stadium, i.e a type of the place as the environment in which h the image 405 is obtained) is an appropriate place for use of the estimation processing (i.e the faces in the image/environment 400 is an appropriate environment for obscuring the faces/heads according to the privacy/anonymization policy) for use of the estimation processing (i.e estimation of the faces/heads)), and
wherein a determination result from the environment determination unit is used to generate the result of the determination of the use status (figs 4-5, 14 and paras 0015-0016, 0082-0083, 0094 shows and discloses 440B “Green status” a determination result meeting the limitations of wherein a determination result from the environment determination unit is used to generate the result of the determination of the use status in response to the privacy policy 842). Before the effective filing date of the invention was made, different figs/embodiments of Jung are combinable. The suggestion/motivation would be a low cost, fast and efficient system at para 0141.
2. Regarding claim 4, JUNG disclose the control apparatus according to claim 1. JUNG discloses further wherein the status monitoring unit includes: a state estimation unit configured to estimate a state of the person estimated by the person estimation unit; and a state determination unit configured to determine whether the state estimated by the state estimation unit is an appropriate state for use of the estimation processing, and wherein a determination result by the state determination unit is used to generate the result of the determination of the use status (figs 5, 14, 24 and paras 0015-0016, 0094, 0119-0120 discloses depicting a class of subjects having a temporal presence in the area and that may hate their temporal presence in the area (i.e would like to keep their presence private (privacy adhered state determined) and outputting the faces obscured based on the privacy policy (fig 14 output 850 based on the privacy policy 842 (i.e privacy state determination)) meeting the above claim limitations, examiner notes that the specifics of “a state determination of a person” are not required by the current claim).
3. Regarding claim 8 as best understood by the examiner, JUNG discloses the control apparatus according to claim 1, wherein in a case where the determination result obtained from the status monitoring unit indicates that the status is not an appropriate status for use of the estimation processing for a predetermined threshold or more of images among a plurality of images obtained by the image obtaining unit, the estimation control unit limits at least one of the estimation processing by the person estimation unit and the output of the result by the person estimation unit (para 0073 discloses “The displays is operable to provide a human-perceivable indication of the anonymization policy. In an embodiment, the display includes colored lights indication the anonymization policed then in effect. For example, in FIG. 3 the colored lights include a green light (G) a yellow light (Y), and a red light (R) that respectively may indicate a green, a yellow, and a red anonymization policy. Continuing with the example, a "green" anonymization policy decreases a fidelity of facial properties and of license plate properties depicted in acquired images. For example the fidelity may be decreased to a point where facial properties are indistinguishable and license plate properties are indistinguishable. A "yellow" anonymization policy decreases a fidelity of facial properties depicted in acquired images, and a "red" anonymization policy does not decrease a fidelity of facial properties and a fidelity of license plate properties” meeting the above claim limitations).
4. Regarding claim 10, JUNG discloses the control apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the person estimation unit includes a first mode in which the estimation processing is executed, and a second mode in which the estimation processing is not executed or the result of the estimation processing is not output, and wherein the estimation control unit is configured to switch a mode of the person estimation unit to either the first mode or the second mode based on the result of the determination of the use status (para 0073 discloses “The displays is operable to provide a human-perceivable indication of the anonymization policy. In an embodiment, the display includes colored lights indication the anonymization policed then in effect. For example, in FIG. 3 the colored lights include a green light (G) a yellow light (Y), and a red light (R) that respectively may indicate a green, a yellow, and a red anonymization policy. Continuing with the example, a "green" anonymization policy (i.e first mode) decreases a fidelity of facial properties and of license plate properties depicted in acquired images. For example the fidelity may be decreased to a point where facial properties are indistinguishable and license plate properties are indistinguishable. A "yellow" anonymization policy decreases a fidelity of facial properties depicted in acquired images, and a "red" anonymization policy does not decrease a fidelity of facial properties and a fidelity of license plate properties” (i.e second mode) meeting the above claim limitations).
5. Regarding claim 14, JUNG disclose the control apparatus according to claim 1, further comprising notification means configured to notify a user of the result of the determination of the use status of the estimation processing by the status monitoring unit (para 0129 and figs 24- 25 step 1720 shows and discloses “Broadcasting a human-perceivable indication of the anonymization policy (i.e notify a user) to at least a portion of the area meeting the above claim limitations, fig 14 element 850 also notifies the user with the displayed message “Policy-faces obscured” meeting the above claim limitations).
6. Regarding claim 15, JUNG disclose the control apparatus according to claim 14, further comprising input means for inputting information about an action by the user in response to the notification by the notification means (paras 0133- 0133 and fig 29 shows the notification to the user in step 1720 and the receiving the human (i.e user) initiated input to select the anonymization policy from the at least two anonymization policies meeting the claim limitations, examiner notes that the specifics of the action by the user are not required by the current claim).
16. Regarding claim 16, JUNG discloses the control apparatus according to claim 15, wherein in a case where action information indicating execution of the estimation processing is input from the user through the input means, the estimation control unit executes one of the estimation processing and the output of the result by the person estimation unit (fig 29 and paras 0132-0133 shows and discloses applying the selected (i.e the user selected through the input means) anonymization policy and generating the obscured image of a member (i.e execution of the estimation means, the execution of the estimation processing and output meeting the above claim limitations).
7. Claim 17 is s corresponding method claim of claim 1. See the corresponding explanation of claim 1. Para 0083 disclose a method.
8. Claim 18 is a corresponding storage medium claim of claims 1 and 17. See the corresponding explanation of claims 1 and 17. Para 0072 discloses program instructions stored in memory storage devices meeting the claim limitations.
Claims 2-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jung in view of TAKEDA HAJIME et al., (JPH11242787A) hereafter TAKEDA.
9. Regarding claim 2, Jung discloses the control apparatus according to claim 1, wherein in a case where the type of the place recognized by the scene recognition unit is a place of a predetermined type (figs 4-5, paras 0079, 0082-0084 shows and wherein the environment determination unit is configured to determine whether the type of the place recognized by the scene recognition unit (i.e the area image of geographic locale, the park--- stadium, i.e a type of the place as the environment in which h the image 405 is obtained) is an appropriate place for use of the estimation processing (i.e the faces in the image/environment 400 is an appropriate environment for obscuring the faces/heads according to the privacy/anonymization policy) for use of the estimation processing (i.e estimation of the faces/heads)). Jung is silent however do not recite in exact claim language the environment determination unit determines that the place is not an appropriate place for use of the estimation processing, and wherein the estimation control unit is configured to limit at least one of the estimation processing by the person estimation unit and the output of the result by the person estimation unit based on a determination result indicating that the place is not an appropriate place for use of the estimation processing.
TAKEDA discloses the environment determination unit determines that the place is not an appropriate place for use of the estimation processing, and wherein the estimation control unit is configured to limit at least one of the estimation processing by the person estimation unit and the output of the result by the person estimation unit based on a determination result indicating that the place is not an appropriate place for use of the estimation processing (para 0007, fig 9. discloses the use of the monitoring is not appropriate in areas such as offices (public places) and houses (i.e in public places the privacy is to be respected) meeting the above claim limitations). Before the effective filing date of the invention was made, Jung and TAKEDA are combinable because they are from the same field of endeavor are analogous art of image processing. The suggestion/motivation would be user friendly monitoring system (i.e it does not discomfort the person) at para 0008. Therefore, it would be obvious and within one of ordinary skill in the art to have recognized the advantages of TAKEDA in the apparatus of Jung to obtain the invention as specified in claim 2.
10. Regarding claim 3, Jung and TAKEDA disclose the control apparatus according to claim 2. TAKEDA discloses further wherein the place of the predetermined type is a public place (para 0007 discloses the offices (i.e the public place)).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jung in view of EKI RYOJI et al. (TWI820194B) hereafter EKI.
11. Regarding claim 11, JUNG discloses the control apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the person estimation unit includes: a face detection unit configured to detect a face of the person from the image (figs 4-5, para 0083 shows and discloses a person estimation unit configured to execute estimation processing to estimate information about the person based on the image and output a result of the estimation processing (i.e recognition/locating/detecting the heads of the human subjects (persons) in the image as seen in fig 4 meeting the above claim limitations). JUNG is silent and however fails to disclose an identifier extraction unit configured to extract a biometric identifier used to identify the person; and a person identifying unit configured to identify the person corresponding to the face detected from the image based on a result of comparison between the biometric identifier extracted by the identifier extraction unit and biometric identifiers for registered persons.
EKI discloses an identifier extraction unit configured to extract a biometric identifier used to identify the person; and a person identifying unit configured to identify the person corresponding to the face detected from the image based on a result of comparison between the biometric identifier extracted by the identifier extraction unit and biometric identifiers for registered persons (Pages 4-5 disclose “Here, face detection refers to the process of detecting the faces of people included in the image data. The so-called face authentication is a process of verifying/identifying whether the face/biometric identifier of the person included in the image data is consistent with the face of the pre-registered person(s)/ (biometric identifiers) as one of the biometric authentications.” meeting the above claim limitations). Before the effective filing date of the invention was made, EKI and JUNG are combinable because they are from the same filed of endeavor and are analogous art of image processing. The suggestion/motivation would be an accurate and quick/fast apparatus/system on page 18 lines 1-5. Therefore, it would be obvious and within one of ordinary skill in the art to have recognized the advantages of EKI in the apparatus of JUNG to obtain the invention as specified in claim 11.
Examiner's Note: Examiner has cited figures, and paragraphs in the references as applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested for the applicant, in preparing the responses, to fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner. Examiner has also cited references in PTO892 but not relied on, which are relevant and pertinent to the applicant’s disclosure, and may also be reading (anticipatory/obvious) on the claims and claimed limitations. Applicant is advised to consider the references in preparing the response/amendments in-order to expedite the prosecution.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAYESH PATEL whose telephone number is (571)270-1227. The examiner can normally be reached IFW Mon-FRI.
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, Andrew Bee can be reached at 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 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.
/JAYESH PATEL/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2677
/JAYESH A PATEL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2677
Prosecution Insights