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 .
Response to Amendment
With respect to Applicant’s amendment of claims 1, 2, 4, 6, 8, 10 and 15-16 with regards to the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101, rejections with respect to the same have been withdrawn.
With respect to Applicant’s amendment of claims 1, 15 and 16 with regards to minor informalities, the claim objections with respect to the same have been withdrawn.
With respect to Applicant’s amendment of claims 1, 2, and 8, and the cancellation of claims 5 and 7, with regards to 35 U.S.C. 112(b), the claim rejections with respect to the same have been withdrawn.
Claim Interpretation
The Office notes that method Claim 15 has been found to recite the following contingent limitations:
Claim 15: “determining the image sensor that includes the arithmetic processing unit as the target to be the execution subject for the software component constructing the application when the input data of the software component constructing the application includes the personally identifiable information”.
As such, the Office has interpreted this claim language in accordance with MPEP 2111.04 (II), which recites, “The broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met.”
The Office notes that the broadest reasonable interpretation of Claim 15 does not include performing the contingent “determining the image sensor… as the target… when…” step indicated above, since the claim does not recite the precedent condition of “the input data of the software component constructing the application includes the personally identifiable information.”
The Office has examined Claim 15 in light of this contingent limitation.
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 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dimitrakos et al. (US PGPUB 2016/0147522; hereinafter “Dimitrakos”) in view of Miyajima (US PGPUB 2010/0241734; hereinafter “Miyajima”), Palumberi et al. (US PGPUB 2019/0354830; hereinafter “Palumberi”) and Matsumoto (US PGPUB 2019/0067359; hereinafter “Matsumoto”).
Claim 15: (Currently Amended)
Dimitrakos teaches an information processing method comprising:
acquiring, by a computer device, a required specification of a software component constructing an application, the required specification including information indicating whether input data of the software component constructing the application includes personally identifiable information that is information capable of identifying an individual ([0019] “receiving a set of compliance characteristics for the application, each compliance characteristic including one or more criteria, each of the criteria being based on one or more formal parameters concerning a resource.” [0057] “a specification of an environment such as the virtualised computing environment 210, potentially including a definition of an architecture of technology components such as software components, software packages, applications, services or solutions required for the deployment of the application.” [0076] “For example, a software application dealing with personal confidential information may be required to comply with legal and regulatory requirements reflected by one or more compliance characteristics. Accordingly, where an assessment of the identified resources 206 indicates that such information is handled by the application, compliance characteristics relating to such regulatory requirements can be selected by the compliance characteristic selector 514.”);
determining the image sensor that includes the arithmetic processing unit as the target to be the execution subject for the software component constructing the application when the input data of the software component constructing the application includes the personally identifiable information (Examiner’s Note: This step is not required given the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim language, as discussed above in the Claim Interpretation section. It is further noted that prior art was not found which teaches or makes obvious this limitation.); and
deploying, by the computer device and to the target to be the execution subject, the software component, the target installing the software component for execution by the target ([0053] “Deployment of the software application 202 includes any or all of installing, configuring, arranging and adapting the software application 202 such that the application 202 is executable with the virtualised computing environment 210.”).
With further regard to Claim 15, Dimitrakos does not teach the following, however, Miyajima teaches wherein
determining, by the computer device, a target to be an execution subject for the software component from among a plurality of candidate devices that include at least an edge-side information processing device ([0019] “The system includes a virtualization platform on a local site side and a virtualization platform on the remote site side linked via a communication net,” wherein the “local site side” is the “edge-side”. [0095] “When the content of the attribute information 821 is judged as ‘confidential’, the confidential data control section 331 determines the destination of the user data 820 to the virtual machine (AP server 700) … on the local site side.” [0064] “to process the user data containing confidential information provided by the client machine 800 on the virtual machine 12 on the local site side instead of processing it on the virtual machine 12 on the remote site side.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the information processing method as disclosed by Dimitrakos with the target candidates as taught by Miyajima for purposes of “avoiding risks caused by having user data containing confidential information transmitted to external networks” (Miyajima [0003]).
With further regard to Claim 15, Dimitrakos in view of Miyajima does not teach the following, however, Palumberi teaches wherein
the edge-side information processing device including a camera having an image sensor ([0015] “The sensor system 129 can include cameras… to capture images.” [0022] “the local computing system 113… communicates with the sensor system 129,” see Fig. 2. [0024] “the on-demand intelligent assistant… executed by a computing system (e.g., local computing system 113).” [0025] “the on-demand intelligent assistant can determine the identity of the target by performing facial recognition and/or voice recognition… the determination of the target's identity can be performed using information stored solely at the computing system. By doing so, information of the target may be maintained locally to prevent unauthorized or unintentional disclosure of personally-identifiable information,” wherein the “sensor system 129” includes the “camera” comprising the “image sensor”.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the information processing method as disclosed by Dimitrakos in view of Miyajima with determination to process the captured image on the image sensor as taught by Palumberi in order “to prevent unauthorized or unintentional disclosure of personally-identifiable information” (Palumberi [0025]).
With further regard to Claim 15, Dimitrakos in view of Miyajima and Palumberi does not teach the following, however, Matsumoto teaches wherein
the camera having an image sensor that includes an arithmetic processing unit ([0017] “The image-capturing apparatus 1 includes a photographing optical system 2, an image sensor 3, and a control unit 4. The image-capturing apparatus 1 is, for example, a camera.” [0024] “the fourth substrate 114 of the image sensor 3 may include a plurality of ALUs (Arithmetic and Logic Units), i.e., arithmetic units 80.” [0058] “The image sensor 3 further includes an arithmetic unit (arithmetic unit 80).”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the information processing method as disclosed by Dimitrakos in view of Miyajima and Palumberi with the image sensor including an arithmetic processing unit as taught by Matsumoto in order “to improve the accuracy in the AD conversion” (Matsumoto [0057]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-2, 4, 6, 8, 10-14 and 16-24 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: The above-mentioned claims have been placed in condition for allowance due to the inclusion of a novel system for selective deployment of a software component based on input data characteristics, particularly with regard to the limitations of Independent Claims 1 and 16 which recite:
“determining the image sensor that includes the arithmetic processing unit as the target to be the execution subject for the software component constructing the application when the input data of the software component constructing the application includes the personally identifiable information; and
deploy, to the target to be the execution subject, the software component, the target installing the software component for execution by the target.”
The prior art teaches various systems and methods for selective deployment of software, but nowhere does any of the prior art disclose a system or method which selectively deploys software based on input data characteristics in the manner disclosed by the Applicant’s independent claims, particularly with regard to the specific limitations discussed above. The fact that the prior art does not teach or render obvious the instant application as recited in the independent claim has placed the aforementioned claims in condition for allowance.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments, see Pages 9-12 of the Remarks filed June 30, 2026, with respect to the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 of Claims 15 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. With respect to the Applicant’s argument that the newly amended language of Claims 15 is not taught by the previously cited prior art, this argument has been fully considered but is moot in view of the newly cited combination of references, i.e. Dimitrakos in view of Miyajima, Palumberi and Matsumoto, as discussed above in the respective rejection.
The Office further notes, as discussed in the Claim Interpretation section, that the limitation which the Applicant argues in not taught by the prior art, i.e. “determining the image sensor that includes the arithmetic processing unit as the target to be the execution subject for the software component constructing the application when the input data of the software component constructing the application includes the personally identifiable information,” is not required given the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim language.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure is as follows:
Ekstrom et al. (US PGPUB 2017/0094018) discloses a system and method for smart filtering and local/remote processing of data, including the evaluation of data for privacy relevance and the handling of private data using local processing.
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 Joanne G. Macasiano whose telephone number is (571)270-7749. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Thursday, 10:30 AM to 6:00 PM Eastern Standard Time.
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, Bradley Teets can be reached at (571) 272-3338. 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.
/J.G.M/Examiner, Art Unit 2197
/BRADLEY A TEETS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2197
Prosecution Insights