Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 17/819,388

IMAGE PROCESSING APPARATUS, IMAGE PROCESSING METHOD, AND IMAGE PROCESSING PROGRAM

Final Rejection §112
Filed
Aug 12, 2022
Examiner
KRAYNAK, JACK PETER
Art Unit
2668
Tech Center
2600 — Communications
Assignee
Fujifilm Corporation
OA Round
4 (Final)
78%
Grant Probability
Favorable
5-6
OA Rounds
3y 1m
To Grant
97%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 78% — above average
78%
Career Allow Rate
75 granted / 96 resolved
+16.1% vs TC avg
Strong +19% interview lift
Without
With
+18.8%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 1m
Avg Prosecution
18 currently pending
Career history
114
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
8.1%
-31.9% vs TC avg
§103
54.4%
+14.4% vs TC avg
§102
27.3%
-12.7% vs TC avg
§112
7.2%
-32.8% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 96 resolved cases

Office Action

§112
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 . Response to Amendment Applicant’s amendment filed on 12/15/2025 overcomes the following objection(s) and/or rejection(s): Amends claims 1 and 17, claims 1-7 and 10-20 are pending. 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 1-7 and 10-20 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. Regarding claims 1 and corresponding claim 17: claim 1 and corresponding claim 17 state "a selection process to select an image corresponding to a designated member from among the plurality of images in accordance with a designated criterion which is designated for at least one of priorities for information items included in the defect information, image quality of a captured image, a type of a member, and an identification number of a member." It is not clear to the examiner the scope of the limitation, to the examiner, the designated criteria could be "priorities of information items included in the defect information" or "image quality of a captured image" or "a type of member" or "an identification number of a member," or, the limitation could be interpreted as one of all four of these items is required as the designated criterion. The limitation "in accordance with a designated criterion which is designated for at least one of priorities for information items included in the defect information" is confusing and should be amended for clarity. The examiner has interpreted the limitation to require "or," or one of, each of the four listed designated criterion in this office action. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 1-7 and 10-20 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter in independent claim 1, the combination including primary reference Shloosh et al fails to teach the limitations of: An image processing apparatus comprising: a processor; and a memory storing a plurality of images obtained by capturing images of a building and a three-dimensional model of the building in which members constituting the building are specified, the plurality of images and the members being stored in association with each other, wherein the processor is configured to perform: an extraction process to extract defect information of the building on the basis of the plurality of images; a selection process to select an image corresponding to a designated member from among the plurality of images in accordance with a designated criterion which is designated for at least one of priorities for information items included in the defect information, image quality of a captured image, a type of a member, and an identification number of a member; an output process to output the designated member, the selected image, and the defect information in association with each other; an image arrangement process to arrange the selected image in an area designated as an image area in a document file having a designated format; And an information input process to input the defect information to an area designated as an information area in the document file, wherein the processor is configured to specify the members using a learning machine configured by machine learning in which the members constituting a three-dimensional model are given as correct labels. As is stated in Para 41 of Shloosh et al: "Surveys data processing based on the images of the bridge and forming a point cloud that corresponds to the bridge based on these images are then carried out as preliminary step for the construction of a 3D model of the bridge according to the object-oriented approach (810). The construction of the 3D model of the bridge (820) comprises the major steps of importing the point cloud, and constructing 3D objects that correspond to a selected collection of points in the point cloud on the one hand and a defined object of the bridge on the other hand, where that object corresponds to a defined part of the bridge." While Shloosh et al discusses a selecting an image corresponding to a location of a 3D model of a bridge for an association output process, Shloosh et al does not specify a selection criterion of either "priorities for information items included in the defect information, image quality of a captured image, a type of a member, and an identification number of a member". The examiner would also like to reference Averianov et al (US 20180012394 A1) which teaches a selection criteria of an image quality (see Paragraph 7) but does not teach a "designated member" that is an image captured of a building - and therefore does not output the designated member, selected image, and defect information in association with each other. Therefore, no prior art alone or in combination teaches the limitations of independent claim 1 and corresponding claim 17. Claims 2-7, 10-16, and 18-20 are objected to as allowable based on dependency. Conclusion Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a). A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JACK PETER KRAYNAK whose telephone number is (703)756-1713. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30 AM - 5 PM. 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, Vu Le can be reached at (571) 272-7332. 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. /JACK PETER KRAYNAK/Examiner, Art Unit 2668 /UTPAL D SHAH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2668
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Aug 12, 2022
Application Filed
Jan 13, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §112
Apr 29, 2025
Response Filed
May 13, 2025
Final Rejection — §112
Jul 30, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Aug 16, 2025
Interview Requested
Aug 18, 2025
Request for Continued Examination
Aug 25, 2025
Examiner Interview Summary
Aug 27, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Sep 09, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §112
Nov 25, 2025
Interview Requested
Dec 02, 2025
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)
Dec 02, 2025
Examiner Interview Summary
Dec 15, 2025
Response Filed
Jan 12, 2026
Final Rejection — §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12602819
IMAGE PROCESSING APPARATUS, FEATURE MAP GENERATING APPARATUS, LEARNING MODEL GENERATION APPARATUS, IMAGE PROCESSING METHOD, AND COMPUTER-READABLE RECORDING MEDIUM
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12592065
SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR OBJECT DETECTION IN EXTREME LOW-LIGHT CONDITIONS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12586210
BIDIRECTIONAL OPTICAL FLOW ESTIMATION METHOD AND APPARATUS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12579720
METHOD OF GENERATING TRAINED MODEL, MACHINE LEARNING SYSTEM, PROGRAM, AND MEDICAL IMAGE PROCESSING APPARATUS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12568314
IMAGE SIGNAL PROCESSOR, METHOD OF OPERATING THE IMAGE SIGNAL PROCESSOR, AND APPLICATION PROCESSOR INCLUDING THE IMAGE SIGNAL PROCESSOR
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 03, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

5-6
Expected OA Rounds
78%
Grant Probability
97%
With Interview (+18.8%)
3y 1m
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 96 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month