DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
2. Claims 1-8 are presented for examination.
Abstract
3. The abstract of the disclosure is acceptable for examination purposes.
Oath Declaration
4. The Oath complies with all the requirements set forth in MPEP 602 and therefore is accepted.
Drawings
5. The drawings received on 08/25/2023 are acceptable for examination purposes.
Priority
6. Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C.119 (a)-(d) for Japanese Patent Application No. JP2023-048551, filed on 03/24/2023.
Information Disclosure Statement
7. The references listed in the information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 08/25/2023 have been considered. The submission complies with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Form PTO- 1449 is signed and attached hereto.
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.
8. Claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
As per claim 1:
The claim recites “An information processing apparatus comprising: one or a plurality of processors configured to: when failing to acquire data, acquire division data in which the data is divided into parts with a division size; and repeat acquisition of the division data while increasing the division size stepwise.”
At step 2A prong 1:
The claim recites the following limitations directed to an abstract idea “when failing to acquire data, acquire division data in which the data is divided into parts with a division size; and repeat acquisition of the division data while increasing the division size stepwise,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the human mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
At Step 2A, Prong Two:
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claim does not include additional limitations that can integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
At step 2B:
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements of “An information processing apparatus” and “one or a plurality of processors” are generic component that are well understood, routine and conventional used as a tool to perform the processes and do not result in the claim as a whole amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea. In Berkheimer v. HP, Inc., 881 F.3d 1360, 125 USPQ2d 1649 (Fed. Cir. 2018), in which the patentee claimed methods for parsing and evaluating data using a computer processing system. See the prior arts kikkawa US 2010/0138396 A1, Kawaguchi US 2021/0255815 A1, and Idesawa et al. US 2022/0358413 A1 teach well known elements. The Federal Circuit determined that these claims were directed to mental processes of parsing and comparing data, because the steps were recited at a high level of generality and merely used computers as a tool to perform the processes. 881 F.3d at 1366, 125 USPQ2d at 1652-53. See MPEP 2106.05(a). Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible. Independent claims 7 and 8 recite similar features of claim 1. Therefore, are also rejected for the same rationale applied to claim 1. Dependent claims 2-6 are extended elements of the abstract idea of the independent claims and the claims are abstract in nature falling withing Mental Processes. The dependent claims do not add any meaningful limits to the abstract idea to improve the technology or the computer component and fails to add significantly more than the abstracts idea. Therefore, the dependent claims are not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a) (1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention
9. Claims 1-5, 7, and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a) (1) as being anticipated by Watanabe (US 2016/0142670 A1).
As per claims 1, 7, and 8:
Watanabe teaches or discloses an information processing apparatus comprising (see Fig. 1, information processing apparatuses 100): one or a plurality of processors configured to (see paragraph [0075], herein the image reproduction apparatus 120 may be implemented as software, with the use of hardware of the surveillance camera apparatuses 110, such as a CPU (Central Processing Unit ): when failing to acquire data, acquire division data in which the data is divided into parts with a division size (see paragraph [0047], herein When the communication unit 121 has failed to receive the division data item, the restoration unit 122 restores the division data item, the reception of which has failed, by using the division data items and the redundancy data item which have been received by the communication unit 121; and paragraph [0068], herein the communication unit 121 tries to acquire division data items A, B and C from the surveillance camera apparatuses 110-1, 110-2 and 110-3. In this example, the communication unit 121 acquires the division data items A and B from the surveillance camera apparatuses 110-1 and 110-2, but fails to acquire the division data item C from the surveillance camera apparatus 110-3 because of theft of the surveillance camera apparatus 110-3. In this case, the communication unit 121 acquires a redundancy data item α from the surveillance camera apparatus 110-4. The restoration unit 122 restores the division data item C, the acquisition of which has failed, based on the division data items A and B and the redundancy data item α. The combining unit 123 generates an image data item by combining the division data items A, B and C, and outputs the image data item); and repeat acquisition of the division data while increasing the division size stepwise (see paragraph [0052], the process returns to step S305. The process of steps S305 to S307 is repeatedly performed, and if the variable i becomes equal to N, the process advances to step S308; and Figs. 3, 6, and 7).
PNG
media_image1.png
535
538
media_image1.png
Greyscale
As per claim 2: Watanabe teaches that wherein the processor is configured to: when failing to acquire the division data, perform a process of acquiring the division data again without changing the division size for the division data (see paragraph [0019], herein the division unit 112 divides the image data item generated by the imaging unit 111, and generates a plurality (N) of division data items. The division number N, by which the image data, item is divided, is a predetermined integer value of 2 or more. In the present embodiment, the division unit 112 divides the image data item such that the N-number of division data items are equal in bit length, and Fig. 3 step 304).
As per claim 3:
Watanabe teaches that wherein the processor is configured to: when failing to acquire the division data, change the division size for the division data, and perform a process of acquiring the division data again (see paragraph [0061], herein in step S605, it is determined whether the variable i is less than N. If the variable i is less than N, the variable i is incremented in step S606, and the process returns to step S602. If the variable i becomes equal to N in step S605, the process is completed).
As per claim 4: Watanabe teaches that wherein the processor is configured to: when failing to acquire the division data, reduce the division size for the division data, and perform a process of acquiring the division data again (see paragraph [0016], herein If the variable i is less than N, the variable i is incremented in step S606, and the process returns to step S602).
As per claim 5:
Watanabe teaches that wherein the division size is predefined so that a maximum size of the data acquirable at a time matches a total of the division size, and the division size is greater for a larger number of acquisitions of the division data (see paragraph [0052], In step S306, it is determined whether the variable i is less than N. If the variable i is less than N, the process advances to step S307 in which i is incremented, that is, i is increased by 1).
Allowable Subject Matter
10. Claim 6 is 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, and to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101, set forth in this Office action.
Examiner Notes
11. When amending the claims, applicants are respectfully requested to indicate the portion(s) of the specification which dictate(s) the structure relied on for proper interpretation and also to verify and ascertain the metes and bounds of the claimed invention.
Prior Art
12. The prior art of record, considered pertinent to the applicant’s disclosure, is listed in the attached PTO-892 form.
Conclusion
13. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OSMAN ALSHACK whose telephone number is (571)272-2069. The examiner can normally be reached on MON-FRI 8:30 AM-5:00 PM EST, also please fax interview request to (571) 273- 2069. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, ALBERT DECADY can be reached on 5712723819. 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 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.
/OSMAN M ALSHACK/Examiner, Art Unit 2112
Prosecution Insights