UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
`United States Patent and Trademark Office
`Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
`PO. Box 1450
`Alexandria, Virginia 2231371450
`www.uspto.gov
`
`16/010,232
`
`06/15/2018
`
`KO]I TAKAYAMA
`
`PANDP0295US
`
`1083
`
`MARK D. SARALINO (PAN)
`RENNER, OTTO, BOISSELLE & SKLAR, LLP
`1621 EUCLID AVENUE
`19TH FLOOR
`CLEVELAND, OH 441 15
`
`TEJANQ DWIGHT ALEX C
`
`ART UNIT
`2698
`
`PAPER NUMBER
`
`NOTIFICATION DATE
`
`DELIVERY MODE
`
`10/03/2019
`
`ELECTRONIC
`
`Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
`
`The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
`
`Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above—indicated "Notification Date" to the
`
`following e—mail address(es):
`
`ipdoeket@rennerotto.eom
`
`PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
`
`

`

`0/7709 A0170” Summary
`
`Application No.
`16/010,232
`Examiner
`Dwight Alex C Tejano
`
`Applicant(s)
`TAKAYAMA, KOJI
`Art Unit
`AIA (FITF) Status
`2698
`Yes
`
`- The MAILING DA TE of this communication appears on the cover sheet wit/7 the correspondence address -
`Period for Reply
`
`A SHORTENED STATUTORY PERIOD FOR REPLY IS SET TO EXPIRE g MONTHS FROM THE MAILING
`DATE OF THIS COMMUNICATION.
`Extensions of time may be available under the provisions of 37 CFR 1.136(a). In no event, however, may a reply be timely filed after SIX (6) MONTHS from the mailing
`date of this communication.
`|f NO period for reply is specified above, the maximum statutory period will apply and will expire SIX (6) MONTHS from the mailing date of this communication.
`-
`- Failure to reply within the set or extended period for reply will, by statute, cause the application to become ABANDONED (35 U.S.C. § 133).
`Any reply received by the Office later than three months after the mailing date of this communication, even if timely filed, may reduce any earned patent term
`adjustment. See 37 CFR 1.704(b).
`
`Status
`
`1). Responsive to communication(s) filed on 15 June 2018.
`[:1 A declaration(s)/affidavit(s) under 37 CFR 1.130(b) was/were filed on
`
`2a)D This action is FINAL.
`
`2b)
`
`This action is non-final.
`
`3)[:] An election was made by the applicant in response to a restriction requirement set forth during the interview on
`; the restriction requirement and election have been incorporated into this action.
`
`4)[:] Since this application is in condition for allowance except for formal matters, prosecution as to the merits is
`closed in accordance with the practice under Expa/ie Quay/e, 1935 CD. 11, 453 O.G. 213.
`
`Disposition of Claims*
`
`5)
`
`Claim(s) fl is/are pending in the application.
`
`5a) Of the above claim(s)
`
`is/are withdrawn from consideration.
`
`E] Claim(s) _ is/are allowed.
`
`Claim(s) 1—3,5—7 and 9—11 is/are rejected.
`
`Claim(s) 4 and 8 is/are objected to.
`
`) ) ) )
`
`6 7
`
`8
`
`
`
`are subject to restriction and/or election requirement
`[:1 Claim(s)
`9
`* If any claims have been determined allowable. you may be eligible to benefit from the Patent Prosecution Highway program at a
`
`participating intellectual property office for the corresponding application. For more information, please see
`
`http://www.usptogov/patents/init events/pph/index.'sp or send an inquiry to PPeredback@uspto.gov.
`
`Application Papers
`10):] The specification is objected to by the Examiner.
`
`11). The drawing(s) filed on 15 June 2018 is/are: a). accepted or b)[:] objected to by the Examiner.
`
`Applicant may not request that any objection to the drawing(s) be held in abeyance. See 37 CFR 1.85(a).
`Replacement drawing sheet(s) including the correction is required if the drawing(s) is objected to. See 37 CFR 1.121 (d).
`
`Priority under 35 U.S.C. § 119
`12). Acknowledgment is made of a claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. § 119(a)-(d) or (f).
`Certified copies:
`
`a). All
`
`b)|:] Some**
`
`c)C] None of the:
`
`1.. Certified copies of the priority documents have been received.
`
`21:] Certified copies of the priority documents have been received in Application No.
`
`3D Copies of the certified copies of the priority documents have been received in this National Stage
`application from the International Bureau (PCT Rule 17.2(a)).
`
`** See the attached detailed Office action for a list of the certified copies not received.
`
`Attachment(s)
`
`1)
`
`Notice of References Cited (PTO-892)
`
`Information Disclosure Statement(s) (PTO/SB/08a and/or PTO/SB/08b)
`2)
`Paper No(s)/Mail Date_
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`
`3) C] Interview Summary (PTO-413)
`Paper No(s)/Mail Date
`4) CI Other-
`
`PTOL-326 (Rev. 11-13)
`
`Office Action Summary
`
`Part of Paper No./Mai| Date 20190916
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 16/010,232
`Art Unit: 2698
`
`Page 2
`
`DETAILED ACTION
`
`Notice of Pre-AIA orAIA 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:
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 16/010,232
`Art Unit: 2698
`
`Page 3
`
`(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.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 16/010,232
`Art Unit: 2698
`
`Page 4
`
`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: setting unit (shown in Fig. 4), imaging unit
`
`(CMOS, 150), detector [0038 - 0041], and controller (210, [0044]) in claim 1.
`
`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)
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 16/010,232
`Art Unit: 2698
`
`Page 5
`
`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 § 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 alt 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 ant to which the claimed invention peltains. Patentability shall not be
`negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
`
`Claim 1 - 3, 5 - 7, 9, and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as
`
`being unpatentable over Takenaka (US 20040081338 A1) in view of
`
`Candelore (US 20150104103 A1.)
`
`Regarding claim 1, Takenaka discloses an imaging apparatus (Fig. 1)
`
`comprising:
`
`a storage (5) configured to record registration information for personal
`
`authentication (Fig. 2 shows face registration process), the registration information
`
`including face information [0028] ;
`
`an imaging unit (1) configured to generate first image data from optical
`
`information [0029];
`
`a detector (3) configured to detect a face of a subject within the first image data
`
`(Fig. 3, 512) and detect the security-protection target according to a result from a
`
`comparison between the face detected and the face information included in the
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 16/010,232
`Art Unit: 2698
`
`Page 6
`
`registration information (Sl4-Sl7: compare face with registration, determine matching
`
`face, and apply mosaic to protect unmatching faces);
`
`an image processor (4) configured to execute a security-protection process on
`
`the security-protection target detected by the detector to generate second image data
`
`(identification results output device displays the image of Fig. 5, where unmatching
`
`faces are protected, [0033]); and
`
`a controller (3) configured to cause the detector to detect the security-protection
`
`target in accordance with the security mode, and cause the image processor to execute
`
`the security-protection process (computer, 3, initiates execution of both the detection
`
`and the image display processes, which obscures faces not registered in the database),
`
`wherein
`
`the first security mode being a mode in which another face
`
`information not included in the registration information is set as the security-protection
`
`target (Fig. 3, $15-$16.)
`
`However, while Takenaka discloses the first security mode where face
`
`information not included in the registration is set as the security-protection target, the
`
`reference fails to disclose the second security mode where only the registered faces are
`
`set as the security-protection target.
`
`The second security mode, however, is considered obvious to one of ordinary
`
`skill in the art, as taught by Candelore.
`
`Candelore discloses a camera that detects faces and compares them to a
`
`database, similar to Takenaka. Candelore also discloses a mode where, when a
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 16/010,232
`Art Unit: 2698
`
`Page 7
`
`person’s image is recognized, the face is obfuscated and encrypted in order to protect
`
`the privacy of the detected person (Fig. 2, 38.) This process would be useful for cases
`
`when the subject may be underage [0007] or otherwise in a condition where
`
`photography may be undesired [0025, 0026]. Because Takenaka already discloses a
`
`process for obscuring images, this would be a simple matter of adjusting the target.
`
`Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include a
`
`secondary security mode where the a face is obscured when a detected face matches
`
`the database in order to protect the privacy of specific persons or groups of people,
`
`such as those under aged or otherwise unable to consent to photography.
`
`Lastly, while the combination satisfies the two modes, the references fail to
`
`disclose a setting unit to select between security modes, as required by the instant
`
`claim. The process of letting a user select between modes, however, is extremely well
`
`known to the art. When a camera has multiple modes, it is obvious that the user would
`
`need to be able to choose between them. Thus, official notice is taken that it would be
`
`obvious to include a selector to select between the modes of the combined device of
`
`Takenaka and Candelore.
`
`Regarding claim 2, the combination satisfies claim 1. Additionally, in the same
`
`way that it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include a selector to
`
`choose between modes, it would similarly be obvious that one of the modes would have
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 16/010,232
`Art Unit: 2698
`
`Page 8
`
`be selected in order for the camera to function. This limitation is therefore rendered
`
`obvious for the same rationale as in the rejection to claim 1.
`
`Regarding claim 3, the combination satisfies claim 1, wherein Candelore
`
`discloses the controller causes the image processor to simultaneously generate the first
`
`image data and the second image data (camera stores obfuscated image and original
`
`image, [0021.])
`
`Regarding claim 5, the combination satisfies claim 1, wherein Takenaka
`
`discloses the security-protection process is at least one of blur process, a pixilation
`
`process, and a mask process [0014.]
`
`Regarding claim 6, the combination satisfies claim 1, wherein Candelore
`
`discloses a data transfer unit (28) configured to upload image data including the second
`
`image data (40) [0022.]
`
`Regarding claim 7, the combination satisfies claim 6, wherein Candelore
`
`discloses the controller is configured to determine whether the image data to be
`
`uploaded by the data transfer unit is the second image data [0021 - 0022.]
`
`Regarding claim 9, the combination satisfies claim 1, wherein the controlled is
`
`configured to determine whether image data to be uploaded is in accordance with the
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 16/010,232
`Art Unit: 2698
`
`Page 9
`
`security mode selected before shooting [if image obfuscation has occurred, then the
`
`camera uploads, 0020-0021.]
`
`Regarding claim 10, the combination satisfies claim 1, wherein Candelore
`
`discloses in a case where the registration information indicating that the face
`
`information is associated with the security-protection target, the plurality of modes
`
`include a third security mode that sets the face information as the security-protection
`
`target (when the detected face information matches the face information stored in the
`
`registered database, the face is as the security-protection target; this is identical the
`
`second mode, and is thus rendered obvious by Candelore for the same rationale as
`
`previously.)
`
`Claim 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable
`
`over Takenaka in view of Candelore and further in View of Jung, et al. (US
`
`20080180539 A1.)
`
`Regarding claim 11, the combination of Takenaka and Candelore satisfies claim
`
`10. However, the references fail to disclose time information indicating a period in
`
`which the secuirt—protection process is executed. Despite this, the Examiner maintains
`
`that such an operation would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as taught by
`
`Jung, et al. (hereafter, “Jung.”)
`
`Similar to Takenaka and Candelore, Jung discloses a system that controls privacy
`
`of users in an image. Furthermore, Jung discloses that the privacy masking (406,
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 16/010,232
`Art Unit: 2698
`
`Page 10
`
`408A/B/C) is controlled by a specific preset anonymization policy (Fig. 3, 350.) This
`
`anonymization policy includes information such as a predetermined time period for
`
`when the policy is active [0078.]
`
`This policy can similarly be incorporated into the system of Takenaka and
`
`Candelore. By incorporating a specific policy, the system can intelligently run different
`
`processes during different situations, such as at different times of day or at higher
`
`populations.
`
`Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include
`
`information such as an anonymization policy indicating a period in which the security-
`
`process is executed in order to create an intelligent automated system for facial
`
`recognition.
`
`Allowable Subject Matter
`
`Claims 4 and 8 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.
`
`Citation of PertinentArt
`
`The prior art made of record is considered pertinent to the applicant’s disclosure,
`
`but is not relied upon as a reference for the preceding sections:
`
`. Koide, et al. (US 20160307600 A1) discloses obscuring detected faces.
`
`. Kim, et al. (US 20060206911 A1) discloses privacy protection on images.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 16/010,232
`Art Unit: 2698
`
`Page 11
`
`. Masuda (US 20080193018 A1) discloses targeted privacy masking.
`
`. Yoda (US 20090207269 A1) discloses a camera with a privacy mask
`
`processor.
`
`. Lee, et al. (US 20120099002 A1) discloses a face image replacement system.
`
`. Erdler (US 20160050341 A1) discloses a camera with image encryption
`
`regions.
`
`Conclusion
`
`Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the
`
`examiner should be directed to Dwight Alex C Tejano whose telephone number is
`
`(571)270-7200. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 10AM-6PM with
`
`alternate Fridays off.
`
`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, Twyler Haskins can be reached on 571-272-7406. 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
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 16/010,232
`Art Unit: 2698
`
`Page 12
`
`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.
`
`/ Dwight Alex C. Tejano/
`Examiner
`
`Art Unit 2698
`
`/TWYLER L HASKINS/
`
`Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2698
`
`