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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
2. 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.
3. Claims 1-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1: Claims 1 and 5 recite “An information processing apparatus…”, claim 22 recites “An information processing method…”, and claim 23 “A non-transitory, computer readable medium…” . Thus, claims are to a machine or process which area statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A Prong One: Claim 1(similarly claim 5) recites that the processor is configured to “acquire information about an imaging apparatus and information about positions and sizes of a first subject and a second subject to be set as an imaging target; and perform a control of estimating an imaging position (claim 1)/direction(claim 5) at which the first subject and the second subject are imageable based on display states of a first image representing the first subject and a second image representing the second subject on a display device and/or another display device.” These claim limitations fall into the “mental process” group of abstract ideas, because they can practically be performed in the human mind. The concepts, as claimed, are observations and/or evaluations (“acquiring information...”), judgements (“perform a control of estimating….”), and opinions (“ are imageable..”). Thus, the claim recites an abstract idea of mental processes. See MPEP 2106.04 and the 2019 PEG.
Step 2A Prong Two: Claims 1 and 5 recite the additional element of the processor being caused to “perform a control of estimating an imaging position (claim 1)/direction(claim 5) at which the first subject and the second subject are imageable based on display states of a first image.” This additional element represents mere data gathering that is necessary for use of the recited abstract idea. Therefore, the limitation is insignificant extra-solution activity. The claim further recites the additional elements of “processor” and “device,” at a high level of generality. These elements are generic components that amount to mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer. Additionally, these limitations are nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exception to the technological environment of a computer. See MPEP 2106.05(1). The claim as a whole, looking at the additional elements individually and in combination, does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Step 2B: As explained in Step 2A Prong Two above, claims 1 and 5 recite the additional elements of the processor and device” to “acquire information…” and “perform a control….”. Regarding the limitations “processor” and “device”, these limitations are merely adding the words to the abstract idea. Generic computer components that amount to mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer cannot provide an inventive concept. Regarding the limitation “perform a control of estimating an imaging….”, this is mere data gathering recited at a high level of generality. The addition of insignificant extra-solution activity does not amount to an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(g). Moreover, the additional elements do not reflect an improvement to a technology or technical field, include the use of a particular machine or particular transformation. The additional elements, taken individually and in combination, do not result in the claim, as a whole, amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea. Regarding claim 22 and 23, these claims are rejected for the same reasons as claim 1 above since these claims are process and machine claim versions of claim 1. Also dependent 2-4 and 7-21, do not contain any limitations that bring the claims out of the abstract realm.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
4. 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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 2, 5-10, 19, 22, and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Lanka et al. (U.S. patent pub. 2020/0412943).
Regarding claim 1: Lanka et al. discloses an information processing apparatus comprising
a processor (fig 2.),
wherein the processor is configured to:
acquire information about an imaging apparatus and information about positions and sizes of a first subject and a second subject to be set as an imaging target (abstract, figs 5-10, and paragraphs 0005, 0006, 0024, 033, and 0046); and
perform a control of estimating an imaging position at which the first subject and the second subject are imageable based on display states of a first image representing the first subject and a second image representing the second subject on a display device and/or another display device (abstract, figs. 5-10, paragraphs 0040-0048, the position and/or direction of the imaging device is/are determined to obtain the images of the subjects.).
Regarding claim 2: The information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to perform a control of displaying information about the estimated imaging position on the display device and/or the other display device (paragraph 0046).
Regarding claim 5: Lanka et al. discloses an information processing apparatus comprising
a processor (fig. 2),
wherein the processor is configured to:
acquire information about an imaging apparatus and information about positions and sizes of a first subject and a second subject to be set as an imaging target (abstract, figs 5-10, and paragraphs 0005, 0006, 0024, 033, and 0046); and
perform a control of estimating a direction in which the first subject and the second subject are imageable based on display states of a first image representing the first subject and a second image representing the second subject on a display device and/or another display, and obtaining a direction in which the imaging apparatus is to be directed (abstract, figs. 5-10, paragraphs 0040-0048, the position and/or direction of the imaging device is/are determined to obtain the images of the subjects.).
Regarding claim 6: The information processing apparatus according to claim 5, wherein the processor is configured to perform a control of displaying on the display device, information about the direction in which the imaging apparatus is to be directed, and notifying the information (paragraphs 0042 and 0046-0047).
Regarding claim 7: The information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the information about the position of the first subject and/or the information about the position of the second subject is information about an altitude and an azimuth of the first subject and/or information about an altitude and an azimuth of the second subject (paragraphs 0046-047).
Regarding claim 8: The information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to:
receive input of information for specifying the first subject and the second subject; and
perform a control of acquiring the information about the position and the size of the specified first subject and the information about the position and the size of the specified second subject from a database (paragraphs 0005, 0023-0024, 0033, and 0045).
Regarding claim 9. The information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to perform a control of acquiring information obtained by measuring the position and the size of the first subject and the position and the size of the second subject (figs. 12a and 12B and paragraph 0046).
Regarding claim 10. The information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to:
acquire information about a current location (figs. 12a and 12B and paragraph 0046);
generate guidance information for leading to the imaging position based on the acquired information about the current location (figs. 12a and 12B and paragraph 0046); and
perform a control of displaying the generated guidance information on the display device and/or the other display device(figs. 12a and 12B and paragraph 0046).
Regarding claim 19. The information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the imaging position includes information about an altitude (paragraph 0046).
Regarding claim 22. Lanka et al. discloses an information processing method comprising:
a step of acquiring information about an imaging apparatus and information about positions and sizes of a first subject and a second subject to be set as an imaging target (see claim 1); and
a step of estimating an imaging position at which the first subject and the second subject are imageable based on display states of a first image representing the first subject and a second image representing the second subject on a display device and/or another display device (see claim 1).
Regarding claim 23: Lanka et al. discloses a non-transitory, computer readable tangible recording medium on which a program for causing, when read by a computer, the computer to execute the information processing method according to claim 22 is recorded (see claim 22 and fig. 2).
Regarding claims 3, 4, 11-18, 20, and 21: These claims are not rejected with prior art since prior art was not found on the claimed subject matter but are still rejected under 35USC 101.
Contact Information
5. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANAND BHATNAGAR whose telephone number is (571)272-7416. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 7:30am-4:00pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Vu Le can be reached on 571-272-4650. 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.
/ANAND P BHATNAGAR/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2668 February 7, 2026