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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 1-7, 12-13 in the reply filed on 03/25/2026 is acknowledged.
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.
Claim(s) 1-7, 12-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang (CN110278486) in view of Kim et al. (US2021/0073945).
To claim 1, Yang teach an information processing apparatus, comprising:
one or more memories storing instructions; and one or more processors (paragraphs 0219-0211) executing the instructions to:
generate a plurality of processed images different in resolution, from a target image (paragraphs 0016, 0106-0109);
set a type of an object included in the target image (S201 of Fig. 2, image object classification); and
select, as an image to be used for specifying the object of the type that has been set, from the plurality of processed images, a processed image of a resolution corresponding to the type of the object that has been set (paragraphs 0046, 0052-0053, 0067-0071, 0102, 0106-0114, 0126-0130, 0138-0143, obtaining deep learning model parameters for processing image resolution and corresponding to the object category; wherein selecting an image would have been obvious since corresponding resolutions have been processed based on classified object category).
In further said obviousness, Kim teach selecting a processed image of a resolution corresponding to the type of the object that has been set (Fig. 5).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate teaching of Kim into the apparatus of Yang, in order to output a processed image.
To claim 12, Yang and Kim teach an information processing method (as explained in response to claim 1 above).
To claim 13, Yang and Kim teach a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium that stores a program for causing an information processing apparatus to perform a control method (as explained in response to claim 1 above).
To claim 2, Yang and Kim teach claim 1.
Yang and Kim teach wherein execution of the stored instructions further configures the one or more processors to cause a display of display data on a display unit to check the object of the type that has been set by using the selected processed image (Kim, paragraph 0216).
To claim 3, Yang and Kim teach claim 2.
Though Yang and Kim do not expressly disclose wherein execution of the stored instructions further configures the one or more processors to: acquire a detection result of the object of the type that has been set and which is included in the target image; and generate the display data based on the selected processed image and the acquired detection result and cause the display unit to display the display data, labeling image resolution and/or indicating identified type of recognized object on display is a well-known practice in the art, which would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claim to incorporate for providing visual output of processed result, hence Official Notice is taken.
To claim 4, Yang and Kim teach claim 2.
Yang and Kim teach wherein execution of the stored instructions further configures the one or more processors to: generate the plurality of processed images by preforming resolution conversion processing and image dividing processing in combination; select a partial image based on sections divided by the image dividing processing from the selected processed image; and generate the display data by using the partial image and cause the display unit to display the display data (Kim, Fig. 6, paragraph 0205).
To claim 5, Yang and Kim teach claim 2.
Yang and Kim teach wherein execution of the stored instructions further configures the one or more processors to, in a case where a plurality of types is set, select a processed image of a resolution corresponding to a type associated with a highest resolution among the plurality of set types (Kim, paragraphs 0017-0019, select and output an optimal high resolution image result; paragraph 0050, display the highest quality of image; obviously optimal high resolution would be the highest resolution selected, hence Official Notice is also taken).
To claim 6, Yang and Kim teach claim 2.
Though Yang and Kim do not expressly wherein the display data includes at least a resolution of the selected processed image or the set type of the object, labeling image resolution and/or indicating identified type of recognized object on display is a well-known practice in the art, which would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claim to incorporate for providing visual output of processed result, hence Official Notice is taken.
To claim 7, Yang and Kim teach claim 6.
Yang and Kim teach wherein execution of the stored instructions further configures the one or more processors to: receive an operation to change the resolution of the displayed processed image or the type of the object; in a case where the operation to change the resolution is received, select a processed image of a changed resolution; and in a case where the operation to change the type of the object, set a changed type (Yang and Kim teach resolution rendering corresponding to object classification as explained above, wherein Kim teach supervised learning in paragraphs 0102-0105, wherein type/label of object can be changed through supervised learning operation, which would obviously lead to change of resolution processing and later display; alternatively, in interpretation of said operation being a display selection from user, it would have been an well-known manual display operation in the art, hence Official Notice is taken).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ZHIYU LU whose telephone number is (571)272-2837. The examiner can normally be reached Weekdays: 8:30AM - 5:00PM.
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, Stephen R Koziol can be reached at (408) 918-7630. 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.
ZHIYU . LU
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2669
/ZHIYU LU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2665 April 23, 2026
Prosecution Insights