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 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 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to abstract idea without significantly more. The independent claims 1, 17 and 18 recites:
1. (exemplary claim) An information processing apparatus comprising:
determine whether a series of records of a previously executed detection process related to detection of a detection target from an image includes a record of a second detection process with a condition related to the detection of the detection target from the image, at least some of which overlaps with a condition of a first detection process based on a process request from a user; - Mental process
and present information about the second detection process to the user in a case where it is determined that the record of the second detection process with the condition at least some of which overlaps with the condition of the first detection process is included. – Mental process
Step Analysis
1: Statutory Category?
Yes. The claim recites a series of steps and, therefore, is a process.
2A - Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited?
Yes. The claim recites the limitations of determine the overlap between the first and second detection process using images and present[ing] the information to the user regarding the overlap determination. The determine and present[ing] limitations, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components i.e. memory and processor. That is, other than reciting “memory” and “processor,” nothing in the claim precludes the determine and present[ing] step from practically being performed in the human mind. For example, but for the “memory” and “processor” language, the claim encompasses the user manually finding a overlap i.e. any similarity between the two records or images.
This limitation is a mental process.
2A - Prong 2: Integrated into a Practical Application?
No. The claim recites additional element:
that memory and processor is used to perform both the determine and present[ing] steps. The memory and processor in both steps is recited at a high level of generality, i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function of processing data. This generic limitation is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this 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.
The claim is directed to the abstract idea.
2B: Claim provides an Inventive Concept?
No. As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional element in the claim amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
The claim is ineligible.
Independent claims 17 and 18 are rejected for the same reasons as set forth in the claim 1 above
The dependent claims 2-16 fail to include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception and therefore are rejected as well.
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.
Claims 1-15 and 17-18 as best understood are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP6099479B2 (IDS document herein after JP’479) in view of Hoshino et al (US Pub. 2022/0099588).
With respect to claim 1, JP’479 discloses An information processing apparatus comprising: one or more memories storing instructions, and one or more processors that execute the instructions to (see Description wherein … image of a concrete surface is taken into a computer…):
determine whether a series of records of a previously executed detection process related to detection of a detection target from an image includes a record of a second detection process with a condition related to the detection of the detection target from the image, at least some of which overlaps with a condition of a first detection process based on a process request from a user, (see Description wherein …In order to achieve the above object, a crack detection method according to the present invention comprises:
(Method A “a first detection process”) A method of creating a crack discrimination image for detecting cracks occurring on the concrete surface, the method comprising Step 1A, Step 2A, and Step3A,
(Method B “a second detection process”) Plane objects represented by artificial structures such as stains, springs, peeling and peeling, and artificial structures such as cables and overhead lines, which are objects having a spread on the surface of the concrete. A non-crack discrimination image corresponding to the method, comprising: Step 1B, Step 2B, and Step3B; … a crack image is created based on the difference “overlap” between the crack discrimination image created by Method A and the non-crack discrimination image created by Method B…); and [present information about the second detection process] to the user in a case where it is determined that the record of the second detection process with the condition at least some of which overlaps with the condition of the first detection process is included, (see figure 11 the crack image created by the two methods), as claimed.
However, JP’479 fails to explicitly disclose present information about the second detection process, as claimed.
Hoshino teaches present information about the second detection process, (see figure 2A, numerical 205; and paragraph 0044, wherein …the display …indicating the progress …result is displayed on the display unit 205…), as claimed.
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skilled in the art at the effective date of invention to combine the two references as they are analogous because they are solving similar problem of defect detection using image analysis. The teaching of Hoshino to display the results can be incorporated into the JP’479 system as suggested (see Figure 11), and modifying the system yields more user-friendly crack detection system, for motivation.
With respect to claim 2, combination of JP’479 and Hoshino further discloses wherein the information about the second detection process is information indicating that the second detection process with the condition at least some of which overlaps with the condition of the first detection process has been executed, (see JP’479 Description wherein …a crack image is created based on the difference “overlap” between the crack discrimination image created by Method A and the non-crack discrimination image created by Method B…), as claimed.
With respect to claim 3, combination of JP’479 and Hoshino further discloses wherein the series of records includes information about a result of the second detection process executed previously, (see JP’479 Description wherein …a crack image is created based on the difference between the crack discrimination image created by Method A and the non-crack discrimination image “records includes information about a result” created by Method B…), as claimed.
With respect to claim 4 and 5, combination of JP’479 and Hoshino discloses all the limitation as claimed in as rejected in claim 1 above. However, they fail to disclose wherein the one or more processors execute the instructions to determine whether a pending or ongoing detection process includes a third detection process with a condition at least some of which overlaps with the condition of the first detection process, and wherein in a case where it is determined that the third detection process with the condition at least some of which overlaps with the condition of the first detection process is included, information about the third detection process is presented to the user; and wherein the information about the third detection process includes at least information indicating a progress status of the third detection process, as claimed.
But, as JP’479 discloses first and second detection process, however, the third process is obvious under the KSR rationale B where its simple substitution of the known elements i.e. second detection process, to obtain the predictable results i.e. to do a third detection process, fourth detection process, fifth detection process and so on.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skilled in the art at the effective date of invention to simply utilizing the components and the functions of the second detection process in plurality of times to yield the predictable result of third detection process as claimed.
With respect to claim 6, combination of JP’479 and Hoshino further discloses wherein the series of records includes information indicating a version of a library applied to a target detection process, wherein the one or more processors execute the instructions to perform a version comparison between the first detection process and the second detection process with the condition at least some of which overlaps with the condition of the first detection process, and wherein in a case where it is determined that the first detection process and the second detection process differ in version from each other, information for checking whether to execute the first detection process is presented to the user, (see JP’479 Description wherein…the method A for creating a crack discrimination image by applying a Gabor function and the method B for creating a non-crack discrimination image by applying a Laplacian Gaussian function “differ in version from each other”…), as claimed.
With respect to claim 7, combination of JP’479 and Hoshino further discloses wherein the one or more processors execute the instructions to determine, individually for each partial image divided from a detection region in an image specified by the process request, whether the record of the second detection process with the condition at least some of which overlaps with the condition of the first detection process on the partial image is included, wherein the first detection process is executed on a first partial image for which it has been determined that the record of the second detection process with the condition at least some of which overlaps with the condition of the first detection process is not included, wherein information indicating a position in the first partial image that is included in information indicating a result of the first detection process is transformed into information indicating a position in the detection region including the first partial image based on coordinate information associating the position in the target partial image with the position in the detection region, and wherein the information indicating the result of the first detection process on the first partial image that has undergone the transformation of the information indicating the position and information indicating a result of the second detection process on a second partial image other than the first partial image in the detection region are presented to the user as information indicating a result of a process on the detection region, (see JP’479 Description wherein … corresponds to the position “position in the detection region” of the target pixel “partial image”, and the continuous amount of wavelet coefficients (C (x0, y0) is obtained by sequentially moving the position of the target pixel. )) Can be calculated…), as claimed.
With respect to claim 8, combination of JP’479 and Hoshino further discloses wherein the one or more processors execute the instructions to transform information indicating a position in an image that is included in the result of the second detection process to which second coordinate information different from first coordinate information applied to the result of the first detection process on the first partial image has been applied among the result of the second detection process in which it is determined that at least some of the condition overlaps with the condition of the first detection process into information indicating a position in the detection region based on the first coordinate information, and wherein the information indicating the result of the process on the detection region that includes at least the information indicating the result of the second detection process that has undergone the transformation of information indicating a position in a target image into information indicating a position in the detection region based on the first coordinate information is presented to the user, (see JP’479 Description wherein …On the other hand, in the method B in the flow shown in FIG. 2, wavelet coefficients are calculated by performing wavelet transformation using the following equation using a Laplacian Gaussian function as a wavelet function (mother wavelet function). Hereinafter, a Laplacian Gaussian function is expressed by Equation 5, a wavelet expansion coefficient (two-dimensional wavelet transform basic equation) is expressed by Equation 6, and a feature amount including a cumulative value of absolute values of the wavelet expansion coefficients expressed by Equation 6 is expressed by Equation 7, respectively…), as claimed.
With respect to claim 9, combination of JP’479 and Hoshino further discloses wherein the process request specifies a plurality of images as a target of the detection process related to the detection of the detection target from the image, and wherein the one or more processors execute the instructions to: determine, individually for each of the plurality of images, whether the series of records includes the record of the second detection process with the condition at least some of which overlaps with the condition of the first detection process on the image; and execute the first detection process on the image for which it has been determined that the record of the second detection process with the condition at least some of which overlaps with the condition of the first detection process is not included, and wherein the one or more processors execute the instructions to present, to the user, information about the image determined to be a target of the first detection process and information about the image not determined to be a target of the first detection process, (see Hoshino paragraph 0050, wherein …Wc is a value of the maximum width of each piece of deformation data, and the parameter W is the reference value (or a threshold) to determine whether or not the deformation is an important deformation. In one example of a method of determining the parameter W in the present embodiment, a preset uniform reference value may be used as the threshold for the entire construction of each deformation type. For example, in a case where the deformation type is a crack and the reference value W is 1.0 mm…; and paragraph 0045, wherein … when the calculation processing of the progress degree is completed, the display data indicating the progress degree calculation result is displayed on the display unit 205…), as claimed.
With respect to claim 10, combination of JP’479 and Hoshino further discloses wherein the one or more processors execute the instructions to: execute, asynchronously with the first detection process based on the process request, a process of determining whether the series of records includes the record of the second detection process with the condition at least some of which overlaps with the condition of the first detection process; and stop the first detection process that is ongoing in a case where it is determined that the record of the second detection process with the condition at least some of which overlaps with the condition of the first detection process is included, (see Hoshino paragraph 0045, wherein …when the calculation processing of the progress degree is completed, the display data indicating the progress degree calculation result is displayed on the display unit 205, and the processing ends “stop”…), as claimed.
With respect to claim 11, combination of JP’479 and Hoshino further discloses wherein the one or more processors execute the instructions to present, to the user, a result of the first detection process based on the process request and a result of a detection process executed previously on another image similar to an image that is a target of the first detection process., (this is read as – user is presented the results of processes, which is disclose by Hoshino see paragraph 0074, wherein …the progress degree calculation unit 227 outputs the calculated progress degree to the display unit 205, and the calculated progress degree is displayed and presented to the user….), as claimed.
With respect to claim 12, combination of JP’479 and Hoshino further discloses wherein the one or more processors execute the instructions to present, to the user, a result of the first detection process based on the process request and a result of another detection process differing in version of an applied library from the first detection process. ., (this is read as – user is presented the results of processes, which is disclose by Hoshino see paragraph 0074, wherein …the progress degree calculation unit 227 outputs the calculated progress degree to the display unit 205, and the calculated progress degree is displayed and presented to the user….), as claimed.
With respect to claim 13, combination of JP’479 and Hoshino further discloses wherein the one or more processors execute the instructions to: generate a second image with a result of the first detection process superimposed on a first image that is a target of the first detection process based on the process request; and present the generated second image to the use, (superimposing images is obvious, see Hoshino paragraph 0030, wherein …example of a method for obtaining the corresponding relationship of the cracks includes a method of determining the corresponding relationship on the basis of the degree of overlap when the shape of the cracks are overlapped. FIG. 1E is a diagram illustrating an enlarged portion region 131 with the crack 121 superimposed in the crack data 112. From FIG. 1E, it can be seen that the crack with the highest degree of overlap with the crack 121 is a crack 132), as claimed.
With respect to claim 14, combination of JP’479 and Hoshino further discloses wherein the one or more processors execute the instructions to determine whether the record of the second detection process is included in the series of records of the detection process executed after a date and time of generation of an image that is a target of the first detection process based on the process request, (displaying the data as per the user’s request- see Hoshino paragraph 0092, wherein …The user can preferably switch the visualized contents of the progress degree on the visualized screen. For example, in response to a user selection of a type selection item 1213, the CPU 201 switches the progress degree display target deformation data in the visualized result 1212…), as claimed.
With respect to claim 15, combination of JP’479 and Hoshino further discloses wherein the one or more processors execute the instructions to determine whether the record of the second detection process is included with priority on the records of the detection process executed at a closer date and time to a date and time of generation of an image that is a target of the first detection process based on the process request, (displaying the data as per the user’s request- see Hoshino paragraph 0092, wherein …The user can preferably switch the visualized contents of the progress degree on the visualized screen. For example, in response to a user selection of a type selection item 1213, the CPU 201 switches the progress degree display target deformation data in the visualized result 1212…), as claimed.
Claims 17 and 18 are rejected for the same reasons as set forth in the rejections for claim 1, because claims 17 and 18 is claiming subject matter of similar scope as claimed in claim 1.
Claim(s) 16 as best understood is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP6099479B2 (IDS document herein after JP’479) in view of Hoshino et al (US Pub. 2022/0099588) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ogawa (US Pub. 2021/0166204).
With respect to claim 16, combination of JP’479 and Hoshino discloses all the limitation as claimed in as rejected in claim 1 above. Furthermore, Hoshino discloses a case where the information about the second detection process with the condition at least some of which overlaps with the condition of the first detection process is presented, (see paragraph 0092, wherein …The user can preferably switch the visualized contents of the progress degree on the visualized screen. For example, in response to a user selection of a type selection item 1213, the CPU 201 switches the progress degree display target deformation data in the visualized result 1212…), as claimed.
However, they fail to disclose wherein the one or more processors execute the instructions to apply a fee that varies between a case where the first detection process based on the process request is executed, as claimed.
Ogawa teaches wherein the one or more processors execute the instructions to apply a fee that varies between a case where the first detection process based on the process request is executed, (see paragraph 0045, wherein … A series of processing including the processing for creating and registering (uploading) an image capturing mission, distributing (downloading) the image capturing mission, executing and evaluating the image capturing mission, and charging a fee to a system user…), as claimed.
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skilled in the art at the effective date of invention to simply combine the references as they are analogous because they are solving similar problem of image processing. The teaching of Ogawa to charge the fee can be incorporated into JP’479 and Hoshino system to yield the predictable results of managing content uploaded in a system and to be utilize by users for a fee.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VIKKRAM BALI whose telephone number is (571)272-7415. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:00AM-3:00PM.
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, Gregory Morse can be reached at 571-272-3838. 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.
/VIKKRAM BALI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2663
Prosecution Insights