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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of a claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. § 119(a)-(d) or (f). 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)).
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 12/01/2023 and 11/08/2024 has been made record of and considered by the examiner. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97.
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the abstract uses the term “means” which is unnecessary legal phraseology. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 14, 15, 19 and 20 are 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.
Specifically, claims 1, 19 and 20 recites “first information which is part of information among information regarding a target region”. The phrase “part of information among information” is unclear to the Examiner and lacks clarity and does not provide reasonable certainty as to the scope of the claimed invention.
Dependent claims 2-18 are likewise rejected for failing to cure the above-noted deficiencies of independent claim 1.
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.
35 U.S.C. 101 requires that a claimed invention must fall within one of the four eligible categories of invention (i.e. process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter) and must not be directed to subject matter encompassing a judicially recognized exception as interpreted by the courts. MPEP 2106. The four eligible categories of invention include: (1) process which is an act, or a series of acts or steps, (2) machine which is an concrete thing, consisting of parts, or of certain devices and combination of devices, (3) manufacture which is an article produced from raw or prepared materials by giving to these materials new forms, qualities, properties, or combinations, whether by hand labor or by machinery, and (4) composition of matter which is all compositions of two or more substances and all composite articles, whether they be the results of chemical union, or of mechanical mixture, or whether they be gases, fluids, powders or solids. MPEP 2106(I).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as not falling within one of the four statutory categories of invention because the claimed invention is directed to computer program per se. See MPEP 2106(I). A claim directed toward a non-transitory computer-readable medium having the program encoded thereon establishes a sufficient functional relationship between the program and a computer so as to remove it from the realm of “program per se”. MPEP 2111.05(III). Hence, the Examiner suggests adding the limitation of “stored on a non-transitory computer-readable medium” could resolve this issue.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 11, 19, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Nishide et al. (US Patent No 11048465 B2).
Regarding claim 1, as best understood based on the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issue identified above, Nishide et al. teaches an information processing device comprising an acquisition means that acquires first information which is part of information among information regarding a target region (Fig. 1D as described in col. 3 line 35 – col. 4 line 2; The setting information includes basic information about an environment or a target object, and various values used for generating the prediction image information); and a generation means that generates, based on the first information acquired by the acquisition means, second information corresponding to a second time which is a time later than a first time which is a time corresponding to the first information. (col. 1 lines 30-45; wherein the imaging unit acquires first image information at a first time, wherein the processing unit generates first prediction image information at a second time later than the first time based on the first image information)
Regarding claim 2, Nishide et al. teaches the information processing device according to claim 1, wherein the acquisition means acquires the first information which is part of the information among the information regarding the target region detected by a sensor; and the generation means generates the second information predicted to be detected by the sensor in the second time, based on the first information. (col. 9 lines 4-14; The detection unit includes at least one sensor)
Regarding claim 3, Nishide et al. teaches the information processing device according to claim 1, wherein the acquisition means acquires the first information which is information of a portion necessary for processing performed by the generation means among the information regarding the target region. Col. 11 lines 54-61; Yet another image processing method is a method in which prediction image information is generated with respect to a portion of a still object in the periphery of the moving object)
Regarding claim 4, Nishide et al. teaches the information processing device according to claim 1, wherein the acquisition means acquires the first information which is information of a portion having a change in the first time among the information regarding the target region. (col. 11 lines 40-53; In the additional image processing, resolution of the portion determined as the moving object 602 is improved and/or refined.)
Regarding claim 5, Nishide et al teaches the information processing device according to claim 1, wherein the acquisition means acquires the first information being sparse with respect to the information regarding the target region. (col. 8 lines 31-46; it is desirable that an amount of data to be processed by the processing unit 102 be as small as possible)
Regarding claim 11, Nishide et al. teaches the information processing device according to claim 9, wherein the generation means generates the second information by using a learning model updated by using the third information. (col. 14 lines 28-53 a trained model is established based on the acquired data. Then, prediction image information is generated by an AI unit using this trained model.)
Regarding claim 19, as best understood based on the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issue identified above, Nishide et al. teaches an information processing method comprising: acquiring first information which is part of information among information regarding a target region; and generating, based on the first information acquired, second information corresponding to a second time which is a time later than a first time which is a time corresponding to the first information. (col. 11 lines 54-61, Yet another image processing method is a method in which prediction image information is generated with respect to a portion of a still object in the periphery of the moving object if there is time before outputting a signal to the display unit after the prediction image information is generated with respect to the moving object. With this method, an image with higher precision can be displayed in real time.)
Regarding claim 20, as best understood based on the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issue identified above, Nishide et al. teaches an information processing program that causes processing to be executed, the processing comprising: acquiring first information which is part of information among information regarding a target region; and generating, based on the first information acquired, second information corresponding to a second time which is a time later than a first time which is a time corresponding to the first information. (Fig. 1D as described in col. 3 line 35 – col. 4 line 2; and col. 18 lines 33-61; for example, reading out and executing the computer executable instructions from the storage medium to perform the functions of one or more of the above-described embodiment(s) and/or controlling the one or more circuits to perform the functions of one or more of the above-described embodiment(s).)
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 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 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishide et al. (US11048465 B2) in view of Tagami et al. (US 20200372260 A1).
Regarding claim 7, Tagami et al teaches the information processing device according to claim 5, wherein the acquisition means acquires the first information corresponding to a portion of a predetermined ratio or less among the target region. (¶ 86; The search area may be only an area where the size of the CB (coding block) is smaller than or equal to a predetermined value by using the data of the CTU.
Nishide et al. teaches acquiring sparse information with respect to a target region in order to reduce the amount of data processed by the processing unit, thereby improving processing efficiency. Tagami et al. further teaches selectively acquiring information from only a portion of a target region that satisfies a predetermined condition. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the teachings of Nishide et al. and Tagami et al. to achieve the predictable result of further reducing the amount of data processed while maintaining effective information processing performance.
Claim(s) 8, 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishide et al. (US Patent No 11048465 B2) in view of Amimoto et al. US PreGrant Publication 2020/0126280.
Regarding claim 8, Amimoto et al. teaches the information processing device according to claim 1, wherein the generation means generates the second information which is encoded data corresponding to the second time. (¶ 46; The communication unit encodes the prediction image generated by the image generating unit)
Regarding claim 9, Amimoto et al. teaches the information processing device according to claim 1, wherein the generation means generates the second information based on the first information and third information corresponding to a third time being a time earlier than the first time. (¶ 46; Based on supplied captured image data, the motion predicting unit 300 predicts a user movement, and identifies the position (posture) of the user at a future time which is a predetermined length of time ahead.)
Regarding claim 10, Amimoto et al. teaches the information processing device according to claim 9, wherein the generation means generates the second information by using the third information generated before generation of the second information. (¶ 43; Specifically, the motion predicting unit 300 identifies a past movement of the user from the temporal order of a plurality of pieces of captured image data supplied so far, and predicts a future movement of the user)
A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Nishide et al. with Amimoto et al. because both references are directed to information processing systems that generate prediction information for future times, and Amimoto et al. provides well known techniques for encoding predication data and improving prediction accuracy using historical temporal information.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6 and 12-17 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RAVEN S. JONES whose telephone number is (571)272-7759. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7:00a.m. - 5:00p.m..
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, Stephen Koziol can be reached at 571-438-5758. 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.
/RAVEN SIMONE JONES/Examiner, Art Unit 2665 /Stephen R Koziol/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2665