DETAILED ACTION
Claims 2-19 are pending in the Instant Application.
Claims 2-19 are rejected (Non-Final Rejection).
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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 27 April 2026 has been entered.
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.
Claims 2-5, 7-10, 12-15 and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Uchikoshi et al. (“Uchikoshi”), United States Patent Application Publication No. 2013/0329059, in view of WATANABE et al. (“Watanabe ‘360”), United States Patent Application Publication No. 2011/0274360.
As per claim 2, Uchikoshi discloses an information processing apparatus comprising:
at least one memory storing instructions ([0046]-[0047] wherein a computer with memory and instructions to control and operate the invention is described); and
at least one processor ([0047]) configured to execute the instructions to:
acquire a plurality of captured images from a camera ([0071], [0074] wherein image data is acquired in repeated intervals from a camera (image pick up device in the prior art));
detect an object in the plurality of captured images ([0075] wherein objects (faces) are detected in the images);
obtain a feature value of the detected object ([0078] wherein the feature value is determined for each object/face);
assign a classification to the detected object based on the feature value ([0080] wherein a person is classified as possibly being a candidate individual);
calculate, before acquiring a query image, a degree of reliability indicating a certainty of the classification assigned to the detected object ([0080] wherein a reliability is calculated for the assigned person classification);
acquire the query image based on an input, the query image being one image from among the plurality of captured images or an image from a different source ([0120] wherein a search key image is used from the specified person list);
identify a target object in the query image ([0120] wherein if the specified person list is used, the target object is identified and identified person is used);
calculate similarity between the query image and the plurality of captured images ([0053] and [0123] wherein a search is conducted to find similar images to the query image);
identify at least one image having a predetermined high similarity from among the plurality of captured images with respect to the query image ([0123] wherein the most similar search results are determined for display); and
control to display, on a user interface:
the identified at least one image ([0123] wherein the images returned as results are displayed on the monitor terminal), but does not disclose control to display, on a user interface: the calculated degree of reliability([0055]).
Both Uchikoshi and Watanabe ‘360 perform image searches. Uchikoshi calculates, before acquiring a query image, a degree of reliability indicating a certainty of the classification assigned to the detected object, and even displaying that value in a list of unspecified people, but does not expressly provide that value as a result of an image search. Watanabe ‘360 displays that value along with results. One could apply the reliability score in Uchikoshi with the placement of that scores along with results as in Watanabe ‘360 in order to provide an indication of verification of the result.
As per claim 3, note the rejection of claim 2 where Uchikoshi and Watanabe are combined. The combination teaches the information processing apparatus according to claim 2. Uchikoshi further discloses execute the instructions to set a display position of the identified at least one image based on the calculated degree of reliability ([See Fig. 7b]), but does not expressly determine a display position in an image search result. However, Watanabe ‘360 teaches wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions to set a display position of the identified at least one image based on the calculated degree of reliability for the identified at least one image ([0055] wherein the display position (order in the prior art) is determined by the reliability).
Both Uchikoshi and Watanabe ‘360 perform image searches. Uchikoshi calculates, before acquiring a query image, a degree of reliability indicating a certainty of the classification assigned to the detected object, and even displaying that value in a list of unspecified people, but does not expressly provide that value as a result of an image search. Watanabe ‘360 displays that value along with results. One could apply the reliability score in Uchikoshi with the placement of that scores along with results as in Watanabe ‘360 in order to provide an indication of verification of the result.
As per claim 4, note the rejection of claim 2 where Uchikoshi and Watanabe ‘360 are combined. The combination teaches the information processing apparatus according to claim 3. Uchikoshi further discloses wherein the at least one processor is configured to execute the instructions to determine the display position of the identified at least one image by further using the calculated similarity between the query image and the plurality of captured images ([0123] wherein the results determined by similarity are shown, causing their position in the result list to be determined by similarity).
As per claim 5, note the rejection of claim 2 where Uchikoshi and Watanabe ‘360 are combined. The combination teaches the information processing apparatus according to claim 3. Uchikoshi further discloses to determine the display position of the identified at least one image based on the calculated similarity between the query image and the plurality of captured images instead of the calculated degree of reliability related to the classification assigned to the detected object in the identified at least one image or together with the calculated degree of reliability related to the classification assigned to the detected object in the identified at least one image, based on a predetermined condition being satisfied (Examiner notes the use of “or,” thus indicating that the degree of similarity or a combination of similarity or reliability be used [0123] wherein the results determined by similarity are shown, causing their position in the result list to be determined by similarity). .
As per claim 7, claim 7 is the method that is performed by the apparatus of claim 2 and is rejected for the same rationale and reasoning.
As per claim 8, claim 8 is the method that is performed by the apparatus of claim 3 and is rejected for the same rationale and reasoning.
As per claim 9, claim 9 is the method that is performed by the apparatus of claim 4 and is rejected for the same rationale and reasoning.
As per claim 10, claim 10 is the method that is performed by the apparatus of claim 5 and is rejected for the same rationale and reasoning.
As per claim 12, claim 12 is the program product that provides the system of claim 2 and is rejected for the same rationale and reasoning.
As per claim 13, claim 13 is the program product that provides the system of claim 3 and is rejected for the same rationale and reasoning.
As per claim 14, claim 14 is the program product that provides the system of claim 4 and is rejected for the same rationale and reasoning.
As per claim 15, claim 15 is the program product that provides the system of claim 5 and is rejected for the same rationale and reasoning.
As per claim 17, note the rejection of claim 2 where Uchikoshi and Watanabe are combined. The combination teaches the information processing apparatus according to claim 2. Uchikoshi further discloses to: identify a feature value of the target object in the query image[0078] wherein the feature value is determined for each object/face); and calculate the similarity between the query image and the plurality of captured images based on the feature value of the query image and the feature value of the plurality of captured images ([0079] wherein image similarity is calculated based on comparing feature values).
As per claim 18, claim 18 is the method that is performed by the apparatus of claim 17 and is rejected for the same rationale and reasoning.
As per claim 19, claim 19 is the program product that provides the system of claim 17 and is rejected for the same rationale and reasoning.
Claims 6, 11 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Uchikoshi, in view Watanabe ‘360, in further view of WATANABE et al. (“Watanabe”), United States Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0147292.
As per claim 6, note the rejection of claim 2 where Uchikoshi and Watanabe ‘360 are combined. The combination teaches the information processing apparatus according to claim 3. Uchikoshi further disclose wherein the at least one processor is configured to execute the instructions to: acquire the query image including a person ([0014] wherein a person is identified from an image); but does not disclose to acquire, as a query pose information, pose information associated with the query image. However, Watanabe teaches to acquire, as a query pose information, pose information associated with the query image ([0091] wherein pose information is input and [0092] wherein a query (recognized as a retrieval in the prior art) is executed).
Both Uchikoshi and Watanabe describe image retrieval and image mapping. One can include the pose information from Watanabe with the facial recognition in Uchikoshi to teach the claimed invention. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the method of image searching based on an object in an input image in Uchikoshi with the pose information from Watanabe in order to use more object data to more quickly search existing images.
As per claim 11, claim 11 is the method that is performed by the apparatus of claim 6 and is rejected for the same rationale and reasoning.
As per claim 16, claim 16 is the program product that provides the system of claim 6 and is rejected for the same rationale and reasoning.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 2-19 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KANNAN SHANMUGASUNDARAM whose telephone number is (571)270-7763. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00 AM -6:00 PM.
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, Charles Rones can be reached at (571) 272-4085. 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.
/KANNAN SHANMUGASUNDARAM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2168
Prosecution Insights