DETAILED ACTION
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 Remark(s)
Applicant's amendment filed August 21st, 2025 have been fully entered and considered. Applicant’s amendment to the claims have overcome each and every objection previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed on May 22nd, 2025. Regarding the arguments to the previous 101, the examiner respectfully finds the arguments to be non-persuasive, see response to remarks section below. Regarding the prior art rejection, all new grounds of rejection set forth in the present action were necessitated by Applicants’ claim amendments. Accordingly, this action is made final.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-20 are pending, claims 1, 3-4 and 19-20 have been amended. Claims 1-20 remains rejected.
Response to Argument(s)
Regarding the Applicants’ arguments to the prior art rejections:
In view of the Amendments to independent claims the previously applied prior art rejections are withdrawn. Applicants’ arguments are rendered moot in view of the new grounds of rejection set forth below.
Regarding the Applicants’ argument on the 101 rejection:
In pages 10-11 of the remarks, the Applicants argue that
The examiner respectfully finds the Applicants’ argument regarding the 101 rejection to be non-persuasive. Based on the 101 analysis, the Applicants state that, under Step 2A Prong 1 abstract idea analysis, it is impractical to say step of extracting “attributes of at least one person and at least one object in the received first image,” extracting of “attributes of the object serving as the identification target,” and identifying the owner of the object “based on the extracted attributes of the object serving as the identification target, stored attributes in the property database, and stored certainty factor,” as recited in claim 1, to be mental process abstract ideas.
Examiner’s reply:
Examiner respectfully disagrees with the Applicants’ arguments on that the newly added features of the claims such as the steps of extracting “attributes of at least one person and at least one object in the received first image,” extracting of “attributes of the object serving as the identification target” are considered to be additional elements, under Step 2A Prong 2, and not considered under abstract idea of Step 2A Prong 1, since they pertain to insignificant extra-solution activities of data gathering of extracting data/information that do not integrate the judicial exceptions of Step 2A Prong 1 into a practical application, nor being considered significantly more. And newly added step of identifying the owner of the object “based on the extracted attributes of the object serving as the identification target, stored attributes in the property database, and stored certainty factor” to be a mental process abstract idea since a human can also perform, based on BRI (broadest reasonable interpretation) identifying owner of an object based on certain given data/information and condition (here in the claim the word “based on” indicates that the data/information, that follows, are merely already processed, taken, given data/information for the mental process to be performed according to which a human mind can observe these data/information to perform the evaluation on them using pen and paper to make such identification).
Furthermore, for step 2A Prong 2, the Applicants argue that the claim recite a practical application of improving accuracy of identifying ownership by a person of an object serving as the identification target. In support of the argument, the Applicants referenced [0066] of the instant specification, hence, says that the steps are integrated into the practical application by using the stored and continuously updated value of the certainty factor improve the accuracy or likelihood that a person owns a particular object or property.
Examiner’s reply:
The examiner respectfully disagrees with the Applicants’ arguments. The Applicants are reminded that the claims are construed based on BRI in light of the specification, and moreover, the requirement for Step 2A Prong 2 is that claims carry additional elements, that are not judicial exceptions, particularly integrate the claimed judicial exceptions into a practical application. In their arguments, the Applicants refer the features of the claim “certainty factor” to be continuously updated to improve the accuracy or likelihood that a person owns a particular object or property. However, the claims simply recite the term “associate” the ownership of the at least one person of the at least one object with “a certainty factor;” importantly, to “associate” two things does not always indicate that they are directly intra-dependent, therefore, by updating “the associated certainty factor” does not always indicates an updating of the “ownership,” based on BRI. Moreover, the Applicants didn’t make a determination which are additional elements that integrate the judicial exceptions into a practical application in their remarks. The examiner further finds, there is no “continuously” updating of the certainty factor in the claim, moreover, there is no definition of what a “certainty factor” to indicate a specific type of certainty to be, there is no condition to when to stop the updating so that a practical application can be indicating of a specific output being improved. Therefore, the examiner finds no practical application being integrated into.
See 101 rejections below for more details.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 19-20 objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, line 12, “at least on object” should be read as “at least one object”.
Claim 19, line 8, “at least on object” should be read as “at least one object”.
Claim 20, line 14, “the associated certainty factor.” should be read as “the associated certainty factor;” as the “.” should be removed and replaced with “;”.
Appropriate correction is 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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101
Regarding independent claim 1 and its dependent claims 1-18,
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 1 is directed to an apparatus/device, which falls within one of the four statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong 1 Analysis: Claim 1 recites, in part, “register, in a property database, the at least one person as an owner of the at least one object; associate ownership of the at least one person of the at least one object with a certainty factor; identify, based on the extracted attributes of the object serving as the identification target, stored attributes in the property database, and stored certainty factor, an owner of the object serving as the identification target; and in response to an identification of the owner of the object serving as the identification target, update a value of the associated certainty factor.” The limitations as drafted, are processes that, under broadest reasonable interpretation, covers the performance of the limitation in the mind which falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. The limitations of:
“register, in a property database, the at least one person as an owner of the at least one object” is a step that a human mind can also perform through a process of observation and judgement, the human mind can observe image data and judge and register a person as an owner of an object as the result; “identify, based on the extracted attributes of the object serving as the identification target, stored attributes in the property database, and stored certainty factor, an owner of the object serving as the identification target” to be a mental process abstract idea since a human can also perform, based on BRI (broadest reasonable interpretation) identifying owner of an object based on certain given data/information and condition (here in the claim the word “based on” indicates that the data/information, that follows, are merely already processed, taken, given data/information for the mental process to be performed according to which a human mind can observe these data/information to perform the evaluation on them using pen and paper to make such identification); “and in and in response to an identification of the owner of the object serving as the identification target, update a value of the associated certainty factor” is a step that a human mind can also perform such as observing the image data and in accordance to certain criteria or rule to identify an owner of the object and update the certainty factor, such as recited in this limitation.
Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong 2 Analysis: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. particular, the claim recites the following additional element(s) –
An information processing apparatus comprising: a processor; and
a memory storing instructions and connected to the processor, wherein the processor is configured to:
receive first image data representing persons and objects excluding the persons;
extract attributes of at least one person and at least one object in the received first image;
receive second image data that represents an object serving as an identification target and owned by an owner that is not identified;
extract attributes of the object serving as the identification target;
These limitations are additional elements – “an information processing apparatus,” “a memory storing instructions and connected to the processor….,” “a processor….,” “receive first image data….,” “extract attributes of at least one person….,” “receive second image data….” and “extract attributes of the object….” - these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea such as the apparatus, the processor are recited at high level of generality to be generic computer and computer components performing generic functions such as processor executing instructions; and the additional elements of receiving image data are merely recited to be steps of data gathering which are insignificant extra-solution activities of receiving data as well as the steps of extracting attributes are merely insignificant extra-solution activities of data gathering. The claim as a whole is directed to an abstract idea. Accordingly, these additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Please see MPEP §2106.04.(a)(2).III.C.
In view of the of the foregoing, the additional step does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Step 2B Analysis: there are no additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Moreover, the additional element as mentioned above does not amount to significantly more for the claim as a whole. Please see MPEP §2106.05. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
For all of the foregoing reasons, claim 1 does not comply with the requirements of 35 USC 101.
For all of the foregoing reasons, claim 1 does not comply with the requirements of 35 USC 101.
Accordingly, the dependent claims 2-18 do not provide elements that overcome the deficiencies of the independent claim 1. Moreover, claims 2, 5-10 and 18 are claims that include wherein clauses in their limitations to just further specify the abstract ideas of the claims they each depend on without providing additional elements that are indicative of an integration into a practical application or being considered as being significantly more, hence still abstract ideas. Claim 3 recites, in part, “in accordance with the second image data and the stored attributes, identify, as the owner of the object serving as the identification target, a person having the certainty factor as the owner of the object serving as the identification target equal to or above a threshold” is a step that a human mind can also perform such as observing the image data and in accordance to certain criteria or rule to identify an owner of the object such as recited in this limitation. Claim 4 recites, in part, “in accordance with the second image data and the stored attributes, identify, as the owner of the object serving as the identification target, a person having the certainty factor as the owner of the object serving as the identification target equal to or above a threshold” is a step that a human mind can also perform such as observing the image data and in accordance to certain criteria or rule to identify an owner of the object such as recited in this limitation. Claim 11 recites, in part, “if a plurality of persons are represented by the first image data, register an owner of the object represented by the first image data, in accordance with a distance between each of the persons represented by the first image data and the object represented by the first image data” is a step that a human mind can also perform through a process of observation and judgement, the human mind can observe image data and judge and register a person as an owner of an object as the result based on a certain condition or rule such as recited in this claim’s limitation. Claim 12 recites, in part, “if a plurality of persons are represented by the first image data, register an owner of the object represented by the first image data, in accordance with a distance between each of the persons represented by the first image data and the object represented by the first image data” is a step that a human mind can also perform through a process of observation and judgement, the human mind can observe image data and judge and register a person as an owner of an object as the result based on a certain condition or rule such as recited in this claim’s limitation. Claim 13 recites, in part, “if a plurality of persons are represented by the first image data, register an owner of the object represented by the first image data, in accordance with a distance between each of the persons represented by the first image data and the object represented by the first image data” is a step that a human mind can also perform through a process of observation and judgement, the human mind can observe image data and judge and register a person as an owner of an object as the result based on a certain condition or rule such as recited in this claim’s limitation. Claims 14-17 can be analyzed in the same approach as for claims 11-14 where the limitation is a step that a human mind can also perform through a process of observation and judgement, the human mind can observe image data and judge and register a person as an owner of an object as the result based on a certain condition or rule such as recited in this claim’s limitation.
Accordingly, the dependent claims 2-18 are not patent eligible under 101.
Regarding the independent claims 19-20, which each recites analogous limitations to the independent claim 1 hence, can be analyzed under the same analysis to be rejected under 101. Moreover, claim 19 further recites additional element of “a non-transitory computer readable medium storing a program” which is additional element of a generic computer component recited at high level of generality performing a generic function of storing a program hence, is not indicative of an integration into a practical application nor being considered as significantly more. Moreover, claim 20 further recites additional feature of “and in accordance with the second image data and contents that are registered, identify the owner of the object serving as the identification target” is a step that a human mind can also perform such as observing the image data and in accordance to certain criteria or rule to identify an owner of the object such as recited in this limitation.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Akao Naohiko et. al. (Foreign Patent Document “JP 2020-166524 A” hereinafter as “Naohiko”) in view of Jungyong Lee et. al. (“US 2019/0384991 A1” hereinafter as “Lee”).
Regarding claim 1, Naohiko discloses an information processing apparatus comprising: a processor; and a memory storing instructions and connected to the processor, wherein the processor is configured to ([0002] discloses an image processing which indicates a use a computer including a processor): receive first image data representing persons and objects excluding the persons (FIG 5 shows an image representing a person and an object in two different boxes hence the objects excluding the person; moreover, there can be more than one images of objects and faces [according to 0055] hence, the other images and this image together can be understood to be the first image data which represent persons and objects); extract attributes of at least one person and at least one object in the received first image ([0055] discloses the system store identification information of the user/person such as face image of the person which is done through a face recognition algorithm according to [0061] which further collects positions of each person; therefore, face images and position information being collected are together analogous to extracted attributes of at least one person; furthermore, object’ attributes such as shape, pattern, color, etc. are also used for the object detection according to [0022]); register, in a property database, the at least one person as an owner of the at least one object ([0055] discloses user registered in the lost object monitoring service, which indicates there is a registering step of a person with an object using the image data [here all the images used in this registering step understood as the first image data by BRI/broadest reasonable interpretation]; the memory storage for storing the processed information is analogous to the property database as claimed); receive second image data that represents an object serving as an identification target and owned by an owner that is not identified ([0059] discloses the notification unit may send the lost item information including the image of the lost item to the user; the image used in this step is analogous to the second image data as claimed, by BRI; moreover, the object of the lost item here is analogous to the object serving as an identification target and owned by an owner as claimed, moreover, the lost item here may not be registered with an owner yet according to [0049]); extract attributes of the object serving as the identification target (the attributes of the object as discussed previously, object’ attributes such as shape, pattern, color, etc. are also used for the object detection according to [0022] being extracted for the object identification [the object here is the identification target]); identify, based on the extracted attributes of the object serving as the identification target, stored attributes in the property database, an owner of the object serving as the identification target ([0055] discloses user registered in the lost object monitoring service, which indicates there is a registering step of a person with an object using the image data [here all the images used in this registering step understood as the first image data by BRI/broadest reasonable interpretation]; [0049] discloses the dopped object can be identified by using position of the image to estimate the owner of the dropped item and the conte that have been registered in advance to identify the owner of the object serving as the identification target, by BRI, covers the scope of the claim).
However, Naohiko does not explicitly disclose associate ownership of the at least one person of the at least on object with a certainty factor; identify, based on the extracted attributes of the object serving as the identification target, stored attributes in the property database, and stored certainty factor, an owner of the object serving as the identification target; and in response to an identification of the owner of the object serving as the identification target, update a value of the associated certainty factor.
In the same field of ownership determination (title and abstract, Lee) Lee discloses associate ownership of the at least one person of the at least on object with a certainty factor (FIG. 14, at step 1435, discloses update belong list for the passenger index as further disclosed in [0208]; the belonging list is shown in FIG. 13; therefore, the passenger index can be understood to be the certainty factor as claimed, since it’s to identify if a certain passenger has that belonging item [according to 0116]); identify, based on the extracted attributes of the object serving as the identification target, stored attributes in the property database, and stored certainty factor, an owner of the object serving as the identification target (as shown in FIG. 14, identify the owner of the belonging according to the information of the object, the information of the passenger and the passenger index); and in response to an identification of the owner of the object serving as the identification target, update a value of the associated certainty factor (as disclosed in [0116-0117], as the processing determine the item to belong to a certain passenger, update the belonging list for that passenger based on the passenger index [also disclosed in 0208], in other words, update the passenger index for the belongings or change the passenger index for which the belonging belongs to, which is analogous to updating a value of the associated certainty factor [updating the belonging list with the updated passenger index]).
Thus, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Naohiko to perform receiving first image data representing persons and objects excluding the persons; associating ownership of the at least one person of the at least on object with a certainty factor and identifying, based on extracted attributes of the object serving as the identification target, stored attributes in the property database, and stored certainty factor, an owner of the object serving as the identification target and in response to an identification of the owner of the object serving as the identification target, updating a value of the associated certainty factor as taught by Lee to arrive at the claimed invention discussed above. Such a modification is the result of combing prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. The motivation for the proposed modification would have been to identify user and belonging more effectively (abstract, Lee).
Regarding claim 2, Naohiko in view of Lee, wherein Naohiko discloses the information processing apparatus according to Claim 1, wherein a second image based on the second image data is displayed on a display, and wherein the processor is configured to cause the display to display information indicating the identified owner in superimposition on the second image (the information including the second image and the identified owner is displayed in superimposition on the second image such as shown in FIG. 5 and disclosed in [0059]).
Regarding claim 3, Naohiko in view of Lee, wherein Naohiko discloses the information processing apparatus according to Claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to, in accordance with the second image data and the stored attributes, identify, as the owner of the object serving as the identification target, a person having the certainty factor as the owner of the object serving as the identification target equal to or above a threshold (based on the information as discussed above in claim 1 including the second image data and the registered contents, and moreover, the person as the owner is estimated based on the position being closest to the position of the lost item in the image to be the owner of the lost item [0045] and further stated that the position of the occupant has to satisfy this predetermined condition to identify as the owner, therefore, the predetermined condition is analogous to the threshold as claimed that the position has to be the closest in proximity and that closest in proximity indicates the distance has to be equal to above a certain proximity for them to be the owner of the lost item which is analogous to the claim’s limitation by BRI; and the process is further based on the passenger index which, as discussed previously, to be analogous to the certainty factor as claimed, by BRI). The motivation for combination of arts is the same as for claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 4, Naohiko in view of Lee, wherein Naohiko discloses the information processing apparatus according to Claim 2, wherein the processor is configured to, in accordance with the second image data and the stored attributes, identify, as the owner of the object serving as the identification target, a person having the certainty factor as the owner of the object serving as the identification target equal to or above a threshold (based on the information as discussed above in claim 2 including the second image data and the registered contents, and moreover, the person as the owner is estimated based on the position being closest to the position of the lost item in the image to be the owner of the lost item [0045] and further stated that the position of the occupant has to satisfy this predetermined condition to identify as the owner, therefore, the predetermined condition is analogous to the threshold as claimed that the position has to be the closest in proximity and that closest in proximity indicates the distance has to be equal to above a certain proximity for them to be the owner of the lost item which is analogous to the claim’s limitation by BRI; and the process is further based on the passenger index which, as discussed previously, to be analogous to the certainty factor as claimed, by BRI). The motivation for combination of arts is the same as for claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 5, Naohiko in view of Lee, wherein Naohiko discloses the information processing apparatus according to Claim 3, wherein the processor is configured to update the certainty factor in accordance with identification results that are based on one or more pieces of the second image data ([0039] discloses a tracing back image stored in sensor information which indicates the position of the occupant and the item are being updated as the tracing back happens based on more pieces of image data which is analogous to the claim’s limitation by BRI).
Regarding claim 6, Naohiko in view of Lee, wherein Naohiko discloses the information processing apparatus according to Claim 4, wherein the processor is configured to update the certainty factor in accordance with identification results that are based on one or more pieces of the second image data ([0039] discloses a tracing back image stored in sensor information which indicates the position of the occupant and the item are being updated as the tracing back happens based on more pieces of image data which is analogous to the claim’s limitation by BRI).
Regarding claim 7, Naohiko in view of Lee, wherein Naohiko discloses the information processing apparatus according to Claim 3, wherein the processor is configured to update the certainty factor in accordance with registration results that are based on one or more pieces of the first image data ([0048] discloses the position of the lost item is detected based on candidate list stored of the lost item storage to determine the lost item position and the occupant position based on the registration results [candidate list]; by BRI, the referring back to the candidate list indicates picking a candidate from the list based on the position hence is analogous to updating the certainty factor based on the registration results as claimed, by BRI).
Regarding claim 8, Naohiko in view of Lee, wherein Naohiko discloses the information processing apparatus according to Claim 4, wherein the processor is configured to update the certainty factor in accordance with registration results that are based on one or more pieces of the first image data ([0048] discloses the position of the lost item is detected based on candidate list stored of the lost item storage to determine the lost item position and the occupant position based on the registration results [candidate list]; by BRI, the referring back to the candidate list indicates picking a candidate from the list based on the position hence is analogous to updating the certainty factor based on the registration results as claimed, by BRI).
Regarding claim 9, Naohiko in view of Lee, wherein Naohiko discloses the information processing apparatus according to Claim 5, wherein the processor is configured to update the certainty factor in accordance with registration results that are based on one or more pieces of the first image data ([0048] discloses the position of the lost item is detected based on candidate list stored of the lost item storage to determine the lost item position and the occupant position based on the registration results [candidate list]; by BRI, the referring back to the candidate list indicates picking a candidate from the list based on the position hence is analogous to updating the certainty factor based on the registration results as claimed, by BRI).
Regarding claim 10, Naohiko in view of Lee, wherein Naohiko discloses the information processing apparatus according to Claim 6, wherein the processor is configured to update the certainty factor in accordance with registration results that are based on one or more pieces of the first image data ([0048] discloses the position of the lost item is detected based on candidate list stored of the lost item storage to determine the lost item position and the occupant position based on the registration results [candidate list]; by BRI, the referring back to the candidate list indicates picking a candidate from the list based on the position hence is analogous to updating the certainty factor based on the registration results as claimed, by BRI).
Regarding claim 11, Naohiko in view of Lee, wherein Naohiko discloses the information processing apparatus according to Claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to, if a plurality of persons are represented by the first image data, register an owner of the object represented by the first image data, in accordance with a distance between each of the persons represented by the first image data and the object represented by the first image data ([0061] discloses register an owner of the object in the image data based on the distance between each of the persons in the image and the object in the image).
Regarding claim 12, Naohiko in view of Lee, wherein Naohiko discloses the information processing apparatus according to Claim 2, wherein the processor is configured to, if a plurality of persons are represented by the first image data, register an owner of the object represented by the first image data, in accordance with a distance between each of the persons represented by the first image data and the object represented by the first image data ([0061] discloses register an owner of the object in the image data based on the distance between each of the persons in the image and the object in the image).
Regarding claim 13, Naohiko in view of Lee, wherein Naohiko discloses the information processing apparatus according to Claim 3, wherein the processor is configured to, if a plurality of persons are represented by the first image data, register an owner of the object represented by the first image data, in accordance with a distance between each of the persons represented by the first image data and the object represented by the first image data ([0061] discloses register an owner of the object in the image data based on the distance between each of the persons in the image and the object in the image).
Regarding claim 14, Naohiko in view of Lee, wherein Naohiko discloses the information processing apparatus according to Claim 4, wherein the processor is configured to, if a plurality of persons are represented by the first image data, register an owner of the object represented by the first image data, in accordance with a distance between each of the persons represented by the first image data and the object represented by the first image data ([0061] discloses register an owner of the object in the image data based on the distance between each of the persons in the image and the object in the image).
Regarding claim 15, Naohiko in view of Lee, wherein Naohiko discloses the information processing apparatus according to Claim 5, wherein the processor is configured to, if a plurality of persons are represented by the first image data, register an owner of the object represented by the first image data, in accordance with a distance between each of the persons represented by the first image data and the object represented by the first image data ([0061] discloses register an owner of the object in the image data based on the distance between each of the persons in the image and the object in the image).
Regarding claim 16, Naohiko in view of Lee, wherein Naohiko discloses the information processing apparatus according to Claim 6, wherein the processor is configured to, if a plurality of persons are represented by the first image data, register an owner of the object represented by the first image data, in accordance with a distance between each of the persons represented by the first image data and the object represented by the first image data ([0061] discloses register an owner of the object in the image data based on the distance between each of the persons in the image and the object in the image).
Regarding claim 17, Naohiko in view of Lee, wherein Naohiko discloses the information processing apparatus according to Claim 7, wherein the processor is configured to, if a plurality of persons are represented by the first image data, register an owner of the object represented by the first image data, in accordance with a distance between each of the persons represented by the first image data and the object represented by the first image data ([0061] discloses register an owner of the object in the image data based on the distance between each of the persons in the image and the object in the image).
Regarding claim 18, Naohiko in view of Lee, wherein Naohiko discloses the information processing apparatus according to Claim 11, wherein the processor is configured to register, as the owner of the object represented by the first image data, a person at a location closest to the object represented by the first image data ([0061] discloses register an owner of the object in the image data based on the distance between each of the persons in the image and the object in the image, being the closest distance to the item).
Regarding claim 19, Naohiko discloses a non-transitory computer readable medium storing a program causing a computer to execute a process, the process comprising ([0002] discloses an image processing which indicates a use a computer including a processor, a non-transitory computer readable medium storing program such as a RAM or ROM): receiving first image data representing persons and objects excluding the persons (FIG 5 shows an image representing a person and an object in two different boxes hence the objects excluding the person; moreover, there can be more than one images of objects and faces [according to 0055] hence, the other images and this image together can be understood to be the first image data which represent persons and objects); extracting attributes of at least one person and at least one object in the received first image ([0055] discloses the system store identification information of the user/person such as face image of the person which is done through a face recognition algorithm according to [0061] which further collects positions of each person; therefore, face images and position information being collected are together analogous to extracted attributes of at least one person; furthermore, object’ attributes such as shape, pattern, color, etc. are also used for the object detection according to [0022]); registering, in a property database, the at least one person as an owner of the at least one object ([0055] discloses user registered in the lost object monitoring service, which indicates there is a registering step of a person with an object using the image data [here all the images used in this registering step understood as the first image data by BRI/broadest reasonable interpretation]; the memory storage for storing the processed information is analogous to the property database as claimed); receiving second image data that represents an object serving as an identification target and owned by an owner that is not identified ([0059] discloses the notification unit may send the lost item information including the image of the lost item to the user; the image used in this step is analogous to the second image data as claimed, by BRI; moreover, the object of the lost item here is analogous to the object serving as an identification target and owned by an owner as claimed, moreover, the lost item here may not be registered with an owner yet according to [0049]); extracting attributes of the object serving as the identification target (the attributes of the object as discussed previously, object’ attributes such as shape, pattern, color, etc. are also used for the object detection according to [0022] being extracted for the object identification [the object here is the identification target]); identifying, based on the extracted attributes of the object serving as the identification target, stored attributes in the property database, an owner of the object serving as the identification target ([0055] discloses user registered in the lost object monitoring service, which indicates there is a registering step of a person with an object using the image data [here all the images used in this registering step understood as the first image data by BRI/broadest reasonable interpretation]; [0049] discloses the dopped object can be identified by using position of the image to estimate the owner of the dropped item and the conte that have been registered in advance to identify the owner of the object serving as the identification target, by BRI, covers the scope of the claim).
However, Naohiko does not explicitly disclose associating ownership of the at least one person of the at least on object with a certainty factor; identifying, based on the extracted attributes of the object serving as the identification target, stored attributes in the property database, and stored certainty factor, an owner of the object serving as the identification target; and in response to an identification of the owner of the object serving as the identification target, updating a value of the associated certainty factor.
In the same field of ownership determination (title and abstract, Lee) Lee discloses associating ownership of the at least one person of the at least on object with a certainty factor (FIG. 14, at step 1435, discloses update belong list for the passenger index as further disclosed in [0208]; the belonging list is shown in FIG. 13; therefore, the passenger index can be understood to be the certainty factor as claimed, since it’s to identify if a certain passenger has that belonging item [according to 0116]); identify, based on the extracted attributes of the object serving as the identification target, stored attributes in the property database, and stored certainty factor, an owner of the object serving as the identification target (as shown in FIG. 14, identify the owner of the belonging according to the information of the object, the information of the passenger and the passenger index); and in response to an identification of the owner of the object serving as the identification target, updating a value of the associated certainty factor (as disclosed in [0116-0117], as the processing determine the item to belong to a certain passenger, update the belonging list for that passenger based on the passenger index [also disclosed in 0208], in other words, update the passenger index for the belongings or change the passenger index for which the belonging belongs to, which is analogous to updating a value of the associated certainty factor [updating the belonging list with the updated passenger index]).
Thus, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Naohiko to perform receiving first image data representing persons and objects excluding the persons; associating ownership of the at least one person of the at least on object with a certainty factor and identifying, based on extracted attributes of the object serving as the identification target, stored attributes in the property database, and stored certainty factor, an owner of the object serving as the identification target and in response to an identification of the owner of the object serving as the identification target, updating a value of the associated certainty factor as taught by Lee to arrive at the claimed invention discussed above. Such a modification is the result of combing prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. The motivation for the proposed modification would have been to identify user and belonging more effectively (abstract, Lee).
Regarding claim 20, Naohiko discloses an information processing method comprising : receiving first image data representing persons and objects excluding the persons (FIG 5 shows an image representing a person and an object in two different boxes hence the objects excluding the person; moreover, there can be more than one images of objects and faces [according to 0055] hence, the other images and this image together can be understood to be the first image data which represent persons and objects); extracting attributes of at least one person and at least one object in the received first image ([0055] discloses the system store identification information of the user/person such as face image of the person which is done through a face recognition algorithm according to [0061] which further collects positions of each person; therefore, face images and position information being collected are together analogous to extracted attributes of at least one person; furthermore, object’ attributes such as shape, pattern, color, etc. are also used for the object detection according to [0022]); registering, in a property database, the at least one person as an owner of the at least one object ([0055] discloses user registered in the lost object monitoring service, which indicates there is a registering step of a person with an object using the image data [here all the images used in this registering step understood as the first image data by BRI/broadest reasonable interpretation]; the memory storage for storing the processed information is analogous to the property database as claimed); receiving second image data that represents an object serving as an identification target and owned by an owner that is not identified ([0059] discloses the notification unit may send the lost item information including the image of the lost item to the user; the image used in this step is analogous to the second image data as claimed, by BRI; moreover, the object of the lost item here is analogous to the object serving as an identification target and owned by an owner as claimed, moreover, the lost item here may not be registered with an owner yet according to [0049]); extracting attributes of the object serving as the identification target (the attributes of the object as discussed previously, object’ attributes such as shape, pattern, color, etc. are also used for the object detection according to [0022] being extracted for the object identification [the object here is the identification target]); identifying, based on the extracted attributes of the object serving as the identification target, stored attributes in the property database, an owner of the object serving as the identification target ([0055] discloses user registered in the lost object monitoring service, which indicates there is a registering step of a person with an object using the image data [here all the images used in this registering step understood as the first image data by BRI/broadest reasonable interpretation]; [0049] discloses the dopped object can be identified by using position of the image to estimate the owner of the dropped item and the conte that have been registered in advance to identify the owner of the object serving as the identification target, by BRI, covers the scope of the claim); in accordance with the second image data and contents that are registered, identifying the owner of the object serving as the identification target ([0049] discloses the dopped object can be identified by using position of the image to estimate the owner of the dropped item and the conte that have been registered in advance to identify the owner of the object serving as the identification target, by BRI, covers the scope of the claim).
However, Naohiko does not explicitly disclose associating ownership of the at least one person of the at least on object with a certainty factor; identifying, based on the extracted attributes of the object serving as the identification target, stored attributes in the property database, and stored certainty factor, an owner of the object serving as the identification target; and in response to an identification of the owner of the object serving as the identification target, updating a value of the associated certainty factor.
In the same field of ownership determination (title and abstract, Lee) Lee discloses associating ownership of the at least one person of the at least on object with a certainty factor (FIG. 14, at step 1435, discloses update belong list for the passenger index as further disclosed in [0208]; the belonging list is shown in FIG. 13; therefore, the passenger index can be understood to be the certainty factor as claimed, since it’s to identify if a certain passenger has that belonging item [according to 0116]); identifying, based on the extracted attributes of the object serving as the identification target, stored attributes in the property database, and stored certainty factor, an owner of the object serving as the identification target (as shown in FIG. 14, identify the owner of the belonging according to the information of the object, the information of the passenger and the passenger index); and in response to an identification of the owner of the object serving as the identification target, updating a value of the associated certainty factor (as disclosed in [0116-0117], as the processing determine the item to belong to a certain passenger, update the belonging list for that passenger based on the passenger index [also disclosed in 0208], in other words, update the passenger index for the belongings or change the passenger index for which the belonging belongs to, which is analogous to updating a value of the associated certainty factor [updating the belonging list with the updated passenger index]).
Thus, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Naohiko to perform receiving first image data representing persons and objects excluding the persons; associating ownership of the at least one person of the at least on object with a certainty factor and identifying, based on extracted attributes of the object serving as the identification target, stored attributes in the property database, and stored certainty factor, an owner of the object serving as the identification target and in response to an identification of the owner of the object serving as the identification target, updating a value of the associated certainty factor as taught by Lee to arrive at the claimed invention discussed above. Such a modification is the result of combing prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. The motivation for the proposed modification would have been to identify user and belonging more effectively (abstract, Lee).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly,