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 .
Notice to Applicants
This communication is in response to the Application filed on 2/22/2024.
Claims 1-15 are pending.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 2/22/2024 has been considered by the examiner.
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.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim is drawn to a “computer-readable storage medium” comprising stored data. The broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim in light of the specification concludes that the claim as a whole covers a transitory signal, which does not fall within the definition of a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter (In re Nuijten). Therefore, claim 15 does not fall within a statutory category. The Examiner recommends amending claim 15 to include "non-transitory computer-readable medium" to overcome the 35 U.S.C 101 rejection.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “an acquisition unit”, “a determination unit”, “the selection unit”, etc. in claims 1-13 and 15.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 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.
Claims 1-3 and 6-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by JP2018181157A to Seichu et al. (hereafter, “Seichu”).
With regard to claim 1 Seichu discloses an information processing apparatus comprising: an acquisition unit that acquires a first image through imaging (face image, image 37, paragraph [0009]); a determination unit that determines whether a predetermined object is included in the first image acquired by the acquisition unit based on a model that has learned the predetermined object (face authentication model 13, paragraphs [0013-0014]); and a selection unit that selects a second image from among images determined by the determination unit as including the predetermined object, and executes relearning of the model by using the selected second image (additional learning execution 27, paragraphs [0017, 0021-0022, 0032]).
With regard to claim 2 Seichu discloses wherein the determination unit determines whether the predetermined object is included in the first image by varying a threshold that is a degree indicating ease of recognition of the predetermined object by the model, and the selection unit selects the second image by using a second threshold different from a first threshold, the first threshold being a threshold that is used when the determination unit determines whether the predetermined object is included in the first image (paragraphs [0039, 0053, 0060-0061).
With regard to claim 3 Seichu discloses wherein the selection unit selects the second image by setting, as the second threshold, a value with which a degree of recognizing the predetermined object is increased as compared with the first threshold (paragraphs [0053 and 0060-0061]).
With regard to claim 6 Seichu discloses wherein the selection unit assigns a label used for learning to the second image based on the predetermined object included in the second image, and executes relearning of the model (paragraphs [0021-0022, 0032]).
With regard to claim 7 Seichu discloses wherein the selection unit assigns the label to the second image by receiving designation of the label to be assigned to the predetermined object included in the second image via a user interface (Figs. 6-7, paragraphs [0021-0022, 0032-0033]).
With regard to claim 8 Seichu discloses wherein the selection unit assigns the label to the second image by using a label assignment model that determines the label to be assigned to the predetermined object included in the second image (paragraphs [0036-0040]).
With regard to claim 9 Seichu discloses wherein the selection unit selects, as the second image, a plurality of images in which a camera parameter of the images are designated from among the images determined as including the predetermined object by the determination unit (paragraphs [0027, 0041-0043, 0045-0048]).
With regard to claim 10 Seichu discloses wherein the selection unit selects, as the second image, an image in which at least one parameter of an exposure value, white balance, and a gain is designated as the camera parameter (paragraph [0027]).
With regard to claim 11 Seichu discloses wherein the selection unit selects, as the second image, a plurality of images in which a size or an aspect ratio of the images is designated from among the images determined as including the predetermined object by the determination unit (paragraphs [0019, 0041, 0043]).
With regard to claim 12 Seichu discloses wherein the acquisition unit acquires a predetermined number of a plurality of images having any one of the same camera parameter, image size, or aspect ratio at imaging, and the selection unit selects, as the second image, the plurality of images acquired by the acquisition unit (this is disclosed throughout the reference with reference to Figures. Paragraphs [0027-0061]).
With regard to claim 13 Seichu discloses wherein the acquisition unit acquires images captured by a plurality of imaging devices installed at different positions as the first image, the determination unit determines, based on the model, whether the predetermined object is included in images captured by the plurality of imaging devices installed at different positions, and the selection unit selects, as the second image, a plurality of images including images captured by at least two different imaging devices from among the images determined as including the predetermined object by the determination unit, and executes relearning of the model by using the selected second image (this is disclosed by Seichu as mentioned above in claim 1, further, Seichu discloses that “the number of video input devices 2 may be plural” at a different positions, inherently. Paragraph [0064]).
With regard to claims 14-15, claims 14-15 are rejected same as claim 1 and the arguments similar to that presented above for claim 1 are equally applicable to claims 14-15, and all of the other limitations similar to claim 1 are not repeated herein, but incorporated by reference.
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.
Claims 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP2018181157A to Seichu et al. (hereafter, “Seichu”).
With regards to claim 4, Seichu discloses the information processing apparatus according to claim 1 as mentioned above. Seichu fails to disclose specifics of plurality of different objects included in the first image. Seichu discloses an image including a face of a person with respect to a region of a person being tracked by, for example, the relative position and size of parts of the face, the shape of the eyes and nose. The facial feature amount calculating unit 24 calculates an attribute for distinguishing a person's face from another person's face, for example, attributes different for each person, such as sizes and relative positions of eyes, nose, mouth, and the like, as the feature amount. See paragraphs [0019, 0043 and 0049].
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Seichu’s reference to have different parts/region of the face to have called plurality of different objects as stated in claim 4. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to realize how much these objects/parts of a face should be originally contained in the face image, as suggested by Seichu.
With regards to claim 5 Seichu discloses wherein the determination unit determines whether the plurality of different objects are included in the first image by varying a threshold that is a degree indicating ease of recognition of the predetermined object by the model, the threshold being able to be set to a different value for each of the plurality of different objects (paragraphs [0039, 0052-0053, etc. throughout the reference]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHEFALI D. GORADIA whose telephone number is (571)272-8958. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8AM-6PM, Friday 8AM-12PM.
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, Henok Shiferaw can be reached at 571-272-4637. 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.
SHEFALI D. GORADIA
Primary Patent Examiner
Art Unit 2676
/SHEFALI D GORADIA/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2676