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. Claim Interpretation The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f): (f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof. The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph: An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof. The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked. As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph: (A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function; (B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and (C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function. Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “a correspondence information acquisition unit”, “setting information acquisition unit”, etc. 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) 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 § 101 35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows: Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title. Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim is NOT directed to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter. The claimed “program” are non-structural per se, and the specification does not exclude the “program” from being software (see paragraphs [0084]-[0085] ). Therefore, a reasonable interpretation in light of the specification leads to the conclusion that the claim encompasses pure software, which does not fall within the definition of a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter. 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 . Claim (s) 1-2 and 8-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US PgPub No. 2016/0140414 by Pham (hereinafter ‘Pham’) in view of US PgPub . No. 2017/0169313 by Choi et al. (hereinafter ‘Choi’) . In regards to claim 1 , Pham teaches a n image processing device that detects, by image processing, types of objects included in an image and positional coordinates at which the objects are located, the image processing device being provided with: (See Pham paragraphs [0036]-[0038], Pham teaches an image processing device for detecting types of objects.) a correspondence information acquisition unit that acquires a first correspondence information group including multiple items of correspondence information in which positional coordinates indicating ranges in which objects are predicted to be located in the image are associated with likelihoods of classes, among multiple predefined classes, corresponding to the ranges; (See Pham [0072]-[0075], Pham teaches determining positions and likelihoods for multiple classes of objects in the image.) an extraction unit that extracts, based on the acquired first correspondence information group and the acquired settings information, a second correspondence information group including at least one or more likely classes and positional information corresponding to the likely classes; and an output unit that outputs the extracted second correspondence information group . (See Pham paragraphs [0085]-[0088], Pham teaches determining the class assigned to each region and generating an image displaying the region with corresponding colors.) However, Pham does not expressly teach a settings information acquisition unit that acquires settings information relating to the image processing . Choi teaches a settings information acquisition unit that acquires settings information relating to the image processing . (See Choi paragraph [0063], Choi teaches setting information regarding speed or accuracy before performing classification.) It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Pham to include the setting information regarding Choi . The determination of obviousness is predicated upon the following findings: One skilled in the art would have been motivated to modify Pham in this manner because/in order to be able to balance processing resource allocation when performing classification. Further, one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as described above by known method with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Pham with Choi to obtain the invention as specified in claim 1 . In regards to claim 2, Pham and Choi teach all the limitations of claim 1. Choi also teaches wherein: the settings information includes at least information indicating either a first setting for prioritizing accuracy of the classes and the positional coordinates extracted by the extraction unit, or a second setting for prioritizing a processing speed of the extraction unit. (See Choi paragraph [0063], Choi teaches setting information regarding speed or accuracy before performing classification.) In regards to claim 8, Pham and Choi teach all the limitations of claim 1. Choi teaches wherein: the settings information acquisition unit acquires the settings information from a settings file. (See Choi Paragraph [0148], Choi teaches storing information in data files.) In regards to claim 9 , Pham and Choi teach all the limitations of claim 1. Choi teaches wherein: the settings information acquisition unit acquires the settings information based on the first correspondence information group acquired by the correspondence information acquisition unit. (See Choi paragraph [0063]-[0064]). Claims 10-12 recite limitations that are similar to that of claim 1. Therefore, claims 10-12 are rejected similarly as claim 1. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 3-7 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. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: In regards to claim 3, the applied art does not teach or suggest “ wherein: in the process by which the extraction unit extracts the second correspondence information group, the number of the classes to be computed when the settings information indicates the second setting is less than the number of the classes to be computed when the settings information indicates the first setting .” In regards to claim 4, the applied art does not teach or suggest “ wherein the extraction unit is further provided with a switching unit that, based on the settings information, switches between a first computation unit that performs computations for extracting the second correspondence information group when the settings information indicates the first setting and a second computation unit that performs computations for extracting the second correspondence information group when the settings information indicates the second setting. ” Claims 5-7 are indicated allowable for being dependent on claim 4. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT UTPAL D SHAH whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-5729 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT M-F: 7:30-5:30 . 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Vu Le can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT (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. /UTPAL D SHAH/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2668