CTNF 18/710,839 CTNF 87300 Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. DETAILED ACTION 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. 1. This action is responsive to communications: Application filed on May 16, 2024, and Drawings filed on May 16, 2024. 2. Claims 1–20 are pending in this case. Claim 1, 18, 19 are independent claims. 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 35 USC § 112 07-30-03 AIA 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. With regard to claims 1 to 17, 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: a region specifying unit that, an allocation unit that in claim 1. 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 wishes to provide further explanation or dispute the examiner’s interpretation of the corresponding structure, applicant must identify the corresponding structure with reference to the specification by page and line number, and to the drawing, if any, by reference characters in response to this Office action. 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 § 112 07-30-02 AIA 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. 07-34-01 AIA Claim s 1 to 17 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention. Claims 1 to 17 are interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f). It is unclear whether the recited structure, material, or acts in these claims are sufficient for performing the claimed function because the Specification is unclear about the corresponding structure(s) of a region specifying unit that and an allocation unit. A block diagram such as FIG. 3 does not provide indications of corresponding structure(s). Further the specification also does not provide the corresponding structure(s). If applicant wishes to have the claim limitation treated under 35 U.S.C. 112 (f), applicant may amend the claim so that the phrase “means for” or “step for” or the non- structural term is clearly not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function, or present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation is written as a function to be performed and the claim does not recite sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function. If applicant does not wish to have the claim limitation treated under 35 U.S.C. 112 (f), applicant may amend the claim so that it will clearly not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112 (f), or present a sufficient showing that the claim recites sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function to preclude application of 35 U.S.C. 112 (f). With regard to claim 11, applicant claims the limitation “11. The information processing device according to claim 1, wherein the region cut out from the image is supplied to the device that performs the specific processing.” The term “the region cut out” was not previous defined. Claim 1 claims a plurality of regions and does not specify any specific region, therefore the term lack antecedent basis. Claims 4, 8, 9, 10, 11 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b). Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 07-07-aia AIA 07-07 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 – 07-12-aia AIA (a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. 07-15-03-aia AIA Claim(s) 1, 5, 6, 12, 13, 14, 18, 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Badam et al., Pub. No.: 20210136171 A1 . With regard to claim 1: Badam discloses an information processing device comprising: a region specifying unit that specifies a plurality of regions (the system generates a plurality segments from the received image or images, paragraph 26: “The segmentation application 118 processes one or more source images captured by the image capture device 102, and generates a plurality of segments based on the one or more source images using the spatial component algorithm 126 for generating spatial components and/or the frequency component algorithm 130 for generating frequency components. The plurality of segments are generated as spatial components generated by spatial decomposition of the one or more source images and/or frequency components that are generated by frequency decomposition of the one or more source images. The plurality of spatial components may identify spatial features within the source images. These spatial features are not particularly limited, and may include landmarks, man-made structures, vegetation, bodies of water, sky, and other visual features that are captured in the source images.”) each including each of a plurality of objects detected from an image (see fig. 6B wherein each segment include multiple trees, paragraph 37: “FIG. 6B illustrates a first example of a flowchart detailing step 508 of the first method 500 in which the spatial components are transmitted to the remote computing device in the priority order that was determined in step 506. At 508A, the edge device may first transmit the low quality component of the entire image. After the low quality component of the entire image is transmitted, at 508B, the edge device may transmit the high quality, high priority component of the image. For example, in agricultural embodiments, this high priority component may be a spatial component of farmland or the trees, which may be the target of analysis by the remote computing device. After the high quality, high priority component of the image is transmitted, at 508C, the edge device may transmit the high quality, low priority component of the image.”); and an allocation unit that allocates specific processing (the processing tasks are allocated to remote computing devices paragraph 40: “At 610, the segmentation application transmits the plurality of segments (frequency components and spatial components) to the remote computing device in the priority order. At 612, the remote computing device, receiving the frequency components and spatial components in the priority order, receives the highest priority component first. At 614, the remote computing device performs an operation on the highest priority component. This operation may be an analytic task to derive useful information from the highest priority component. At 616, as the remote computing device receives the rest of the components in the priority order, the remote computing device stitches or assembles the components to complete the image transfer.”). to be performed on each of the plurality of regions to a plurality of devices (the processing tasks are allocated to remote computing devices, paragraph 22: “The edge device 102 is configured to divide the captured images into segments, determine one or more segments that to be high priority for an image processing application 134 that is executed on the edge device 102. The edge device 102 then determines a given priority order in which the segments are transmitted or uploaded to the one or more computing devices 106 based on the determination that the one or more segments are high priority for the image processing application 134, and subsequently transmits the segments to the one or more computing devices 106 based on the given priority order. In some embodiments, the captured images may be filtered by the edge device 102 to select a subset of the plurality of captured images to segment and transmit to the one or more computing devices 106, where the subset of the plurality of captured images are images of a target object for analysis.”). With regard to claim 5: Badam discloses the information processing device according to claim 1, further comprising a priority determination unit that determines a priority of allocating a device that performs the specific processing by the allocation unit for the plurality of regions (paragraph 22: “The edge device 102 is configured to divide the captured images into segments, determine one or more segments that to be high priority for an image processing application 134 that is executed on the edge device 102. The edge device 102 then determines a given priority order in which the segments are transmitted or uploaded to the one or more computing devices 106 based on the determination that the one or more segments are high priority for the image processing application 134, and subsequently transmits the segments to the one or more computing devices 106 based on the given priority order. In some embodiments, the captured images may be filtered by the edge device 102 to select a subset of the plurality of captured images to segment and transmit to the one or more computing devices 106, where the subset of the plurality of captured images are images of a target object for analysis."). With regard to claim 6: Badam discloses The information processing device according to claim 5, wherein the priority determination unit determines the priority on a basis of whether or not the object is deformed (paragraph 30: “In an implementation of determining a priority order for transmitting the components, the plurality of components may be generated by the segmentation application 118, and then a priority order for the components may be determined by the segmentation application 118 based on an application sensitivity algorithm 132. The application sensitivity algorithm 132 may add noise to each of the components, or degrade the quality of each of the components, and determine an effect that the addition of noise or degradation of quality of each of the components has on an indication monitored by the application sensitivity algorithm 132. For example, the indication may be a quantitative measurement of objects, such as a quantity of fruit or insects, captured in the source images. When the indication changes beyond a predetermined threshold, or crosses a predetermined threshold, the segmentation application determines that the component is high priority. In the example of an indication being a quantity of fruit, when the quantity of fruit measured in the spatial component corresponding to the tree drops dramatically as a result of the degradation of the component, this change in indication may lead the indication to cross the predetermined threshold to determine that the spatial component corresponding to the tree is high priority. It will be appreciated that the application sensitivity algorithm 132 may be applied to spatial components and frequency components to determine the priority order in which the spatial components and frequency components are transmitted to the remote computing device, so that the highest priority, or the most important components are received by the remote computing device first.”). With regard to claim 12: Badam discloses the information processing device according to claim 1, wherein the image and information indicating the region are supplied to the device that performs the specific processing (paragraph 38: “FIG. 6C illustrates a second example of a flowchart detailing step 508 of the first method 500 in which the spatial components are transmitted to the remote computing device in the priority order that was determined in step 506. At 508A, the edge device may first transmit a high quality image of the highest priority component. In agricultural embodiments, this highest priority component may be a spatial component of farmland or the trees, which may be the target of analysis by the remote computing device. After the highest priority component is transmitted, at 508B, the edge device may transmit the high quality image of the second highest priority component. For example, in agricultural embodiments, this second highest priority component may be a spatial component of grassland. After the second highest priority component of the image is transmitted, at 508C, the edge device may transmit the high quality image of the lowest priority component of the image. In agricultural embodiments, this lowest priority component may be a spatial component of the sky, for example.”). With regard to claim 13: Badam discloses the information processing device according to claim 1, wherein the specific processing is estimation of attribute information on the object (paragraph 40: “(paragraph 40: “At 610, the segmentation application transmits the plurality of segments (frequency components and spatial components) to the remote computing device in the priority order. At 612, the remote computing device, receiving the frequency components and spatial components in the priority order, receives the highest priority component first. At 614, the remote computing device performs an operation on the highest priority component. This operation may be an analytic task to derive useful information from the highest priority component. At 616, as the remote computing device receives the rest of the components in the priority order, the remote computing device stitches or assembles the components to complete the image transfer.”).”). With regard to claim 14: Badam discloses the information processing device according to claim 1, wherein the plurality of devices includes a first device and a second device, (paragraph 22: “The edge device 102 is configured to divide the captured images into segments, determine one or more segments that to be high priority for an image processing application 134 that is executed on the edge device 102. The edge device 102 then determines a given priority order in which the segments are transmitted or uploaded to the one or more computing devices 106 based on the determination that the one or more segments are high priority for the image processing application 134, and subsequently transmits the segments to the one or more computing devices 106 based on the given priority order. In some embodiments, the captured images may be filtered by the edge device 102 to select a subset of the plurality of captured images to segment and transmit to the one or more computing devices 106, where the subset of the plurality of captured images are images of a target object for analysis.”) and the first device is a device having a function of an information processing device (paragraph 40: “At 610, the segmentation application transmits the plurality of segments (frequency components and spatial components) to the remote computing device in the priority order. At 612, the remote computing device, receiving the frequency components and spatial components in the priority order, receives the highest priority component first. At 614, the remote computing device performs an operation on the highest priority component. This operation may be an analytic task to derive useful information from the highest priority component. At 616, as the remote computing device receives the rest of the components in the priority order, the remote computing device stitches or assembles the components to complete the image transfer.”). Claim 18 is rejected for the same reason as claim 1. Claim 19 is rejected for the same reason as claim 1 . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 2, 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Badam, in view of He, CN 113473038 A . With regard to claim 2: Badam does not disclose the information processing device according to claim 1, wherein the allocation unit determines a device to which the specific processing is allocated on a basis of a calculation amount required for the specific processing. However He discloses the aspect wherein allocation unit determines a device to which the specific processing is allocated on a basis of a calculation amount required for the specific processing (“In some embodiments, the processor 11, for determining the number of sub-images obtained by dividing the original image according to the first size is F; dividing said one image processing task into F sub-image processing tasks; based on the F sub-image processing task, generating F processing instruction; sending a processing instruction to each calculating unit of the N calculating units in the current non-executing processing operation; the F is an integer greater than 0; the first size is not greater than the maximum size of the image processed by any one of the N calculating units; the F sub-image processing task is the two or more than two sub-image processing tasks. the F processing instructions corresponding to the F sub-image processing task, that is, each processing instruction indicates a calculating unit executes the processing instruction corresponding to the sub-image processing task. It should be understood that the processing instruction received by each calculating unit of the current non-executing processing operation is different, that is, each calculating unit executes a sub-image processing task. For example, a suitable load of each computing unit in the image processing device (the maximum size of the image to be processed) is a configurable value, such as 262144; when the size of the image to be processed is 1024 * 1024, then calculating (1024 * 1024)/(262144) = 4. if the image processing device currently has 4 or more than 4 of the calculation unit is available, then selecting 4 calculation unit to allocate sub-image processing task, otherwise, firstly scheduling a part of sub-image processing task to the current available calculation unit, the rest of the sub-image processing task waiting for available calculation unit and then scheduling.”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the filing was made to apply He to Badam so the system would allocate processing task based on processing time required in order to save time and processing power. With regard to claim 3: Badam and He disclose The information processing device according to claim 2, wherein the allocation unit calculates the calculation amount required for the specific processing from an area of the region (He, “In some embodiments, the processor 11, for determining the number of sub-images obtained by dividing the original image according to the first size is F; dividing said one image processing task into F sub-image processing tasks; based on the F sub-image processing task, generating F processing instruction; sending a processing instruction to each calculating unit of the N calculating units in the current non-executing processing operation; the F is an integer greater than 0; the first size is not greater than the maximum size of the image processed by any one of the N calculating units; the F sub-image processing task is the two or more than two sub-image processing tasks. the F processing instructions corresponding to the F sub-image processing task, that is, each processing instruction indicates a calculating unit executes the processing instruction corresponding to the sub-image processing task. It should be understood that the processing instruction received by each calculating unit of the current non-executing processing operation is different, that is, each calculating unit executes a sub-image processing task. For example, a suitable load of each computing unit in the image processing device (the maximum size of the image to be processed) is a configurable value, such as 262144; when the size of the image to be processed is 1024 * 1024, then calculating (1024 * 1024)/(262144) = 4. if the image processing device currently has 4 or more than 4 of the calculation unit is available, then selecting 4 calculation unit to allocate sub-image processing task, otherwise, firstly scheduling a part of sub-image processing task to the current available calculation unit, the rest of the sub-image processing task waiting for available calculation unit and then scheduling.”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the filing was made to apply He to Badam so the system would allocate processing task based on processing time required in order to save time and processing power . 07-21-aia AIA Claim 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Badam, in view of Isogawa, Pub. No.: JP 2010103612 A . With regard to claim 7; Badam does not disclose the information processing device according to claim 5, wherein the priority determination unit determines the priority on a basis of whether or not the object moves. However Isogawa discloses the information processing device according to claim 5, wherein the priority determination unit determines the priority on a basis of whether or not the object moves (“The segmented regions containing images of moving and stationary objects are combined, after assigning priority to segmentation region of moving object image than segmentation region of stationary object image. Hence the synthesized image of moving object or stationary object can be provided effectively. The quality of the captured image obtained from electronic camera can be increased, irrespective of lighting conditions.”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the filing was made to apply Isogawa to Badam so the system can prioritize regions for processing based on whether it contains objects that moves to save time and processing power . 07-21-aia AIA Claim 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Badam, in view of Schnieders, Pub. No.: WO2018/059934A1 . With regard to claim 15: Badam does not disclose the information processing device according to claim 14, wherein the first device is an AR device. However Schnieders discloses the aspect wherein a first device of multiple device for receive allocation for process is an AR device (“In an implementation form of the AR communication system the AR interaction device comprises a controller configured to control the transfer of the at least part of the captured reality data to the back-end computer server and to control reception of the returned AR data, and the controller is further configured to control providing the user with the information based on the reality data enriched with the AR data. Such controller provides the advantage that application-specific allocation of processing tasks to either the AR device or the back-end computer server can be provided. The controller can control which tasks are provided to the back-end computer server.”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the filing was made to apply Schnieders to Badam so AR device can be used for allocation for processing image data wherein Augmented Reality devices tend to have image processing capabilities . 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 16, 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Badam, in view of Wang, Patent No.: 112988361A1 . With regard to claim 16: Badam does not disclose the aspect wherein the second device can perform processing at a higher speed than the first device. However Wang discloses the aspect wherein the second device can perform processing at a higher speed than the first device (“the scheduling server distributes the task to each computing server, because the computing performance of each computing server is different, then the speed of processing the allocated task is different. The scheduling server will determine who is assigned to the next task according to the current load condition of each computing server, and does not care for the assigned task computing server whether the server has been completed and the result response to the user is not. Therefore, there is a situation, that is, it has been assigned to the task of the calculation server, is not processed, and waiting processing time is long, which will affect the speed of the user response result.”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the filing was made to apply Wang to Badam so the tasks can be assigned to different devices such as different server devices each capable of handling the tasks at different speed for greater versatility. With regard to claim 17: Badam and Wang disclose the information processing device according to claim 16, wherein the second device is a server device (Wang “the scheduling server distributes the task to each computing server, because the computing performance of each computing server is different, then the speed of processing the allocated task is different. The scheduling server will determine who is assigned to the next task according to the current load condition of each computing server, and does not care for the assigned task computing server whether the server has been completed and the result response to the user is not. Therefore, there is a situation, that is, it has been assigned to the task of the calculation server, is not processed, and waiting processing time is long, which will affect the speed of the user response result.”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the filing was made to apply Wang to Badam so the tasks can be assigned to different devices such as different server devices each capable of handling the tasks at different speed for greater versatility. Pertinent Arts 07-96 AIA The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Azar, Pub. No: 20090007101 A1, It should be appreciated that such devices (210, 212) can have different processing resources, processing speeds, allotments of tasks, etc., that can impact completion time of a particular task P.sub.ij. It should also be appreciated that devices (210, 212) on network 208 do not cooperate with each other to reduce global completion time of assigned task(s) 216 (e.g., such devices do not intercommunicate so as to dynamically allocate tasks in accordance with concurrent device processing time and capacity). As such, network 208 and devices 210 and 212 constitute an unrelated network system. Bremer, Pub. No.: 20160335524 A1, For example, the image analysis system may map segments or clusters of segments generated from images on containers whose bills of lading specify bananas to the object type of banana. When a target image is associated with a certain type of object, the image analysis system may use the mapping to determine whether the image contains segments similar to those segments that are mapped to that object type. For example, if a bill of lading specifies bananas but the target image does not have any segments that are similar to those previously associated with bananas, then the image analysis system may signal a discrepancy. Also, the image analysis system may use information from the bill of lading to help guide the identification of common objects . Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DI XIAO whose telephone number is (571)270-1758. The examiner can normally be reached 9Am-5Pm est M-F. 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 Hong can be reached at (571) 272-4124. 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. /DI XIAO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2178 Application/Control Number: 18/710,839 Page 2 Art Unit: 2178 Application/Control Number: 18/710,839 Page 3 Art Unit: 2178 Application/Control Number: 18/710,839 Page 4 Art Unit: 2178 Application/Control Number: 18/710,839 Page 5 Art Unit: 2178 Application/Control Number: 18/710,839 Page 6 Art Unit: 2178 Application/Control Number: 18/710,839 Page 7 Art Unit: 2178 Application/Control Number: 18/710,839 Page 8 Art Unit: 2178 Application/Control Number: 18/710,839 Page 9 Art Unit: 2178 Application/Control Number: 18/710,839 Page 10 Art Unit: 2178 Application/Control Number: 18/710,839 Page 11 Art Unit: 2178 Application/Control Number: 18/710,839 Page 12 Art Unit: 2178 Application/Control Number: 18/710,839 Page 13 Art Unit: 2178 Application/Control Number: 18/710,839 Page 14 Art Unit: 2178 Application/Control Number: 18/710,839 Page 15 Art Unit: 2178 Application/Control Number: 18/710,839 Page 16 Art Unit: 2178 Application/Control Number: 18/710,839 Page 17 Art Unit: 2178 Application/Control Number: 18/710,839 Page 18 Art Unit: 2178 Application/Control Number: 18/710,839 Page 19 Art Unit: 2178 Application/Control Number: 18/710,839 Page 20 Art Unit: 2178 Application/Control Number: 18/710,839 Page 21 Art Unit: 2178
Prosecution Insights