DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
Claims 1-10 were previously pending. Applicant’s amendment filed August 10, 2026, has been entered in full. Claims 1, 2, 5 and 8-10 are amended. No claims are cancelled. New claim 11 is added. Accordingly, claims 1-11 are now pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant traverses the previous rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), arguing that the amended claims are definite (Remarks filed August 10, 2026, hereinafter Remarks: Page 7-8). In particular, Applicant argues that claim 1 has been amended to clarify that “The ‘third image region’ corresponds to an image region characterized by a relational feature that is output by the model, a differs from both ‘the first image region’ and ‘the one or more second image regions’ included in the image” (Remarks: Page 7). Examiner agrees that the claim does apparently differentiate the regions by distinctly labeling them “first”, “second” and “third”. However, given that apparent distinctness, it is unclear what is meant by claim 1’s later recitation of “the one or more second image regions having the specific relation” (lines 14-15; emphasis added). Earlier recitations in the claim specifically describe the third image region, not the second image region, as “having a specific relation with the first image region” (lines 9-10). Despite Applicant’s amendments to replace “another image region” with “a third image region”, the claims are still indefinite because – as in the Non-Final Rejection – the relationships among the different image regions recited in claim 1 are unclear.
Applicant traverses the previous rejections under 35 U.S.C. 102, arguing that Lim does not disclose all the features of the amended claims (Remarks: Pages 8-10). Applicant notes amendments requiring the use of “a model” to calculate a relational feature (Remarks: Page 9). Applicant then argues that Lim describes “an I-net layer 306 that defines a feature vector of individual pixels (see [0032])” and that the “feature vector in Lim does not meet clarified claim features” (Remarks: Page 9). Applicant’s argument is respectfully unclear and further explanation is requested. While Applicant’s arguments note the need for a model, the I-net 306 referenced by Applicant’s arguments is clearly part of a model (e.g., Lim: Fig. 5; [0031], “The I-Net layer 306 includes a set of artificial neural layers”). Perhaps Applicant is arguing that individual pixels are not image regions? If so, Examiner respectfully disagrees. A pixel can be seen as the smallest region within an image – see further explanation in Claim Interpretation below.
Applicant further argues that the affinity graph of Lim does not fall within the scope of the claim (Remarks: Pages 9-10). These arguments are apparently directed to the “Aspect B” of Lim mapped in the Non-Final Rejection. As discussed above, the scope of the claim is unclear, so it is unclear whether Lim’s affinity graph (i.e., Aspect B) falls within the scope of the amended claims. Nevertheless, Examiner has provided updated rejections necessitated by Applicant’s amendments and, at least for the sake of examination efficiency, the updated rejections below focus on Aspect A rather than Aspect B.
Claim Interpretation
Claims are given their broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) during examination. MPEP 2111. Under BRI, the words of a claim are given their plain meaning, unless such meaning is inconsistent with the specification. MPEP 2111.01, Subsection I. The plain meaning of a term is the ordinary and customary meaning given to the term by those of ordinary skill in the art at the relevant time. Id.
The claims recite various image regions. The plain meaning of an image region is that it is a region within an image. A pixel represents a small region within an image. See, e.g., pages 50-55 (especially Fig. 2.17) of ‘Gonzalez’ (Digital Image Processing, 3rd ed., Prentice Hall, 2007, pp. 50-55)1. For at least this reason, an individual pixel is within the plain meaning of an image region. This plain meaning is not inconsistent with the specification, which generally uses the term “image region” without specifying a minimum size, number of pixels, etc. Therefore, an individual pixel is within the BRI of an image region.
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.
Claims 1-11 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the one or more second image regions having the specific relation with the first image region" in lines 14-15. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites three different image regions: “a first image region” (line 4), “one or more second image regions” (line 6) and “a third image region having a specific relation with the first image region” (lines 9-10). By referring to them separately as “first”, “second”, or “third”, the claim is apparently differentiating them – i.e., indicating that they are distinct elements of the claim. Applicant has also argued for such a construction (Remarks filed August 10, 2026: Page 7, “The ‘third image region’ corresponds to an image region characterized by a relational feature that is output by the model, and differs from both ‘the first image region’ and ‘the one or more second image regions’”).
This apparent differentiation makes the meaning of “the one or more second image regions having the specific relation with the first image region” (lines 14-15; emphasis added) unclear because the claim earlier states that it is the third image region that has a specific relation with the first image region, not the second image region.
First, “the one or more second image regions having the specific relation with the first image region” lacks adequate antecedent basis in the claim because none of the earlier-recited second image regions are described as having the specific relation with the first image region.
Second, the later recitation of “the one or more second image regions having the specific relation with the first image region” calls into question whether the second image regions are actually distinct from the third image region, since both have the specific relation with the first image region. Is the “third image region” one of the second image regions, even though they are apparently distinguished in the claim?
Third, an interpretation of the claim where the first, second, and third image regions are distinct would apparently read apart from the specification. For example, Fig. 6 illustrates an input region (i.e., a first image region) being received at S101 and a candidate region (i.e., one or more second image regions) being extracted at S102. Then a self-feature and a relational feature are calculated for the input region (i.e., the first image region) and the candidate region (i.e., the one or more second regions). The specification apparently does not mention calculating a relational feature for any third image region that is distinct from the first and second image regions. Such inconsistency causes the scope of the claim to “take on an unreasonable degree of uncertainty” and further renders the claim indefinite. MPEP 2173.03.
In summary, claim 1 is indefinite because it is unclear what relationship exists, if any, between the “first”, “second”, and “third” image regions recited in claim 1, and it is also unclear what is being referred to as “the one or more second image regions having the specific relation with the first image region”.
Claims 9 and 10 recite similar limitations and are also indefinite for substantially the same reasons as claim 1.
Claims 2-8 and 11 are also indefinite at least because they include the indefinite limitations of claim 1.
Claim 5 is further indefinite for at least the following reasons:
First, claim 5 recites that “the calculation unit further calculates the relational feature for a new first image region by using the model” (lines 4-5, numbered consecutively from the first line of the claim on page 3). Is “the relational feature” the same relational feature as recited in claim 1, or a different relational feature? On the one hand, use of “the” suggests that they are the same. On the other hand, claim 1 recites calculating the relational feature by “inputting the image and the region information” while claim 5 recites that the relational feature is calculated “for a new first image region”, which suggests that they are different.
Second, the claim recites “the second image region that is determined to have the specific relation with the first image region” (lines 5-6), which lacks adequate antecedent basis for the reasons discussed above with respect to claim 1.
Third, the claim recites “the second image region having the specific relation with the new first image region” (lines 7-8), which is also indefinite for substantially the same reasons discussed above. I.e., it lacks adequate antecedent basis because there is no prior recitation of a second image having such a specific relation and it is also unclear whether or how the second image region having the specific relation with the new first image region is related to the other image regions recited in the claims.
Fourth, it is unclear how the model defined in claim 1 may be used to further calculate the relational feature “for a new first image region”. The model is defined as claim 1 to accept (a) the image and (b) the region information as inputs and to produce (c) a relational feature of a third image region as output. It is unclear whether the “new first image region” is acting as input (a), input (b), output (c), or none of the above.
Claim 8 is further indefinite for at least the following reasons:
First, the claim recites “the one or more second regions having the specific relation with the first image region” (lines 2-3, numbered consecutively from the first line of the claim on page 4), which lacks adequate antecedent basis for the reasons discussed above with respect to claim 1.
Second, claim 1 requires determining regions “based on similarities” (line 15). Claim 8 recites determining similarities “by using a graph neural network” (line 3) that inputs “input data” (line 4). It is unclear whether the input data of claim 8 is or includes the similarities recited in claim 1. On the one hand, claim 1 requires that the determination is based on similarities. On the other hand, claim 8 does not mention similarities at all and the separate recitation of “input data” appears to be distinct from the earlier recitation of “similarities”, which would suggest that the input data of claim 8 is different from the similarities of claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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) 1-4, 6-7, and 9-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by ‘Lim’ (US 2018/0336454 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Lim discloses an information processing device (e.g., Figure 2) comprising:
one or more hardware processors (e.g., [0022], Fig. 2, controller circuit 202) configured to function as (e.g., [0029], [0038], controller circuit 202 is controlled to function as the various disclosed units, such as those of Figs. 3 and 4):
a reception unit configured to receive inputs of
an image (e.g., [0040], Fig. 4, step 402, input image) and
region information indicating a first image region in the image (e.g., [0032], an individual pixel within the image; Note that an individual pixel falls within the BRI of an image region – see Claim Interpretation above);
an extraction unit configured to extract one or more second image regions from the image (i.e., other individual pixels in the image, besides the “first” pixel/region noted above);
a calculation unit configured to calculate a relational feature by using a model (e.g., [0032]-[0033], [0042], feature maps are calculated for each pixel by using I-Net layer 306, which is a model) the model inputting the image and the region information (e.g., [0031]-[0032], I-Net layer receives input image and its individual pixels) and outputting the relational feature (e.g., [0032]-[0034], output of I-Net is a feature map including a feature vector for every individual pixel; One of these feature vectors is the relational feature), the relational feature being a feature of a third image region having a specific relation with the first image region indicated by the region information (The meaning of this limitation is unclear – see ‘112(b) rejection above; The feature map output by I-Net includes features for all pixels/regions within the input image, which would necessarily include any third region within that image; The “specific relation” may be, for example, belonging to the same instance), and calculate one or more self-features each of which indicates a feature of one of the one or more second image regions (i.e., features from the feature map for other/second pixels/regions in the image besides the first pixel/region); and
a determination unit configured to determine the one or more second image regions having the specific relation with the first image region based on similarities each of which indicates a similarity between the relational feature and one of the one or more self-features (Note the ‘112(b) rejection; e.g., [0035], [0049], pixels/regions [such as the first and second pixels/regions] having sufficiently similar features are determined by FPS layer 308 to belong to the same instance – i.e., to have the specific relation).
Regarding claim 2, Lim discloses the information processing device according to claim 1, wherein
the model is learned in advance such that, among image regions included in the image, the similarity between a self-feature of an image region having the specific relation with the first image region and the relational feature output from the model is larger than the similarity between a self-feature of an image region not having the specific relation with the first image region and the relational feature output from the model (e.g., [0035], features for first/second pixel/region pairs that have the specific relation of being from the same instance have higher similarity than features for pixels/regions that are not from the same instance).
Regarding claim 3, Lim discloses the information processing device according to claim 2, wherein the model obtains the relational feature of an entire image (e.g., [0033], “a size of the feature map is configured to be the same size as the input image”), and cut outs the relational feature of the first image region from the relational feature of the entire image based on the region information (e.g., [0034], feature vectors of first and second pixels are selected from feature map, thus cutting them out from the entire image feature map based on their pixel positions/region information).
Regarding claim 4, Lim discloses the information processing device according to claim 2, wherein the model further receives an input of information indicating a position of each element included in the image (e.g., [0031]-[0032], individual pixel positions within the overall image are input to I-Net layer 306 so that it can produce corresponding feature vectors at those positions in the feature map), and outputs the relational feature (i.e., the feature map including the feature vectors; see mapping for claim 1 above).
Regarding claim 6, Lim discloses the information processing device according to claim 1, wherein the specific relation is a hierarchical relation (e.g., [0049]-[0050], the “specific relation” is belonging to a same instance; This is a hierarchical relation as the particular instance can be seen as a higher level of hierarchy [e.g., a parent] and each of the pixels/regions falling within that same instance can be seen as a lower level of hierarchy [e.g., children]).
Regarding claim 7, Lim discloses the information processing device according to claim 1, wherein the calculation unit calculates a plurality of the relational features for the first image region indicated by the region information (e.g., [0032], [0034], a vector including plural features, such as 128 features, is calculated for each pixel to form the feature map).
Regarding claim 9, Examiner notes that the claim recites a method that is substantially the same as the method performed by the device of claim 1. Lim discloses the device of claim 1 (see above). Accordingly, claim 9 is also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lim for substantially the same reasons as claim 1.
Regarding claim 10, Examiner notes that the claim recites a computer program product having a non-transitory computer readable medium including programmed instructions stored thereon, wherein the instructions, when executed by a computer, cause the computer to perform a method that is substantially the same as the method of claim 9. Lim discloses the method of claim 9 (see above, including rejection of claim 1). Lim further discloses implementing its method as a computer program product having a non-transitory computer readable medium including programmed instructions stored thereon, wherein the instructions, when executed by a computer, cause the computer to perform the method (e.g., [0022], [0027], Fig. 2, memory 206). Accordingly, claim 10 is also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lim for substantially the same reasons as claim 9.
Regarding claim 11, Lim discloses the information processing device according to claim 1, wherein the calculation unit calculates the one or more self-features by using the model (e.g., [0032]-[0033], I-Net model produces features for each pixel in the image; As explained in the rejection of claim 1, the features for pixels that are second image regions are self-features; Therefore, the self-features are also calculated by using the I-Net model).
Claims Not Rejected Over Prior Art
Claims 5 and 8 are not rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 or 103. However, both claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) and therefore are not in condition for allowance at this time.
As explained above in the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), there is a great deal of confusion and uncertainty as to the proper interpretation of the limitations of claims 5 and 8. Under such circumstances, it would not be proper to reject such a claim on the basis of prior art. MPEP 2173.06, Subsection II.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GEOFFREY E SUMMERS whose telephone number is (571)272-9915. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 7:00 AM to 3:30 PM ET.
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, Chan Park can be reached at (571) 272-7409. 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.
/GEOFFREY E SUMMERS/Examiner, Art Unit 2669
1 Examiner notes that this reference is cited to establish whether a pixel falls within the BRI of an image region, rather than as prior art used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102 or 103.
Prosecution Insights