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 .
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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 07/10/2026 with respect to amended claims 1 – 12 and addition of new claims 13 - 18 have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
Applicant has amended the title of the invention to overcome the objection to the specification provided in the previous office action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 17 - 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention. In claims 17 - 18 applicant claims “same meaning” and “different natural languages”. The applicant does not define what is meant by “same meaning”, “natural”, and “different natural languages” in the specification as filed. Clarification without introduction of new matter is required. Appropriate correction is required.
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:
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.
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 1 – 7 and 11 – 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable IONITA (US PgPub No. 2021/0182585) in view of Hirano (US PgPub No. 20130202154).
Regarding claim 1, IONITA teaches an information processing apparatus (figures 1 – 4 item 10; and paragraphs 0029 and 0049 - 0050) comprising: at least one memory that is configured to store instructions (paragraphs 0031 – 0034 and 0090); and at least one processor that is configured to execute the instructions (paragraphs 0031 - 0034, 0040 - 0044, and 0090) to: output first guide information (paragraph 0031 and 0052 - 0053; figures 4 and 6 items 26 and 44; output the guide information); and evaluate the first guide information on the basis of a target image (paragraph 0031 and 0053; instructing the user).
However, IONITA fails to teach evaluate the first guide information on the basis of a target image captured before and after an output of the guide information; determine, based on an evaluation of the first guide information, second guide information different from the first guide information ; and output the second guide information after output of the first guide information. Hirano, on the other hand teaches evaluate the first guide information on the basis of a target image captured before and after an output of the guide information; determine, based on an evaluation of the first guide information, second guide information different from the first guide information; and output the second guide information after output of the first guide information.
More specifically, Hirano teaches evaluate the first guide information on the basis of a target image captured before and after an output of the guide information (figures 3 – 4, 7, and paragraph 0047, 0146, and 0187; image capture repeated while providing guide information); determine, based on an evaluation of the first guide information, second guide information different from the first guide information (figures 3 – 4, 7, and paragraph 0047, 0146, and 0187; based on first guide information and movement of camera providing a second guide information); and output the second guide information after output of the first guide information (figures 3 – 4, 7, and paragraph 0047, 0146, and 0187; second guide information provided after the first guide information).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ) to incorporate the teachings of Hirano with the teachings of IONITA because Hirano teaches in at least paragraph 0014 that using the invention allow a user to easily capture an image sequence from the entire surroundings of a product, thereby improving the invention of IONITA.
Regarding claim 2, as mentioned above in the discussion of claim 1, IONITA in view of Hirano teach all of the limitations of the parent claim. Additionally, IONITA teaches wherein the at least one processor is configured to execute the instructions to: calculate a quality score from the target image (figures 14 – 22 calculating distortion score also paragraph 0073); estimate a degradation factor of quality from the target image (figures 14 – 20 also paragraph 0067, distortion vs distance ratio); and generate the first guide information on the basis of at least one of the quality score and the degradation factor (figure 21 item 64 yes or no and processing; also paragraph 0087).
Regarding claim 3, as mentioned above in the discussion of claim 2, IONITA in view of Hirano teach all of the limitations of the parent claim. Additionally, IONITA teaches wherein the at least one processor is configured to execute the instructions to evaluate the first guide information on the basis of a transition of at least one of the quality score and the degradation factor before and after the output of the first guide information (figure 21 item 64 yes or no and processing; also paragraph 0087; also paragraph 0031 and 0053; instructing the user).
Regarding claim 4, as mentioned above in the discussion of claim 3, IONITA in view of Hirano teach all of the limitations of the parent claim. Additionally, IONITA teaches wherein the at least one processor is configured to execute the instructions to evaluate the first guide information on the basis of at least one of information about an imaging environment (figures 2 – 13), an imaging date and time (paragraph 0039), an imaging target (figures 2 – 13), and an imaging place of the target image (figures 2 – 13), in addition to the transition of at least one of the quality score and the degradation factor (figures 21 – 22 items 62 - 40).
Regarding claim 5, as mentioned above in the discussion of claim 1, IONITA in view of Hirano teach all of the limitations of the parent claim. Additionally, IONITA teaches wherein the at least one processor is configured to execute the instructions to: perform learning on the basis the evaluation (paragraphs 0032 – 0033; learned results).
However, IONITA fails to teach generate the second guide information by using a learning result. Hirano, on the other hand teaches generate the second guide information by using a learning result.
More specifically, Hirano teaches generate the second guide information by using a learning result (figures 3 – 4, 7, and paragraph 0047, 0146, and 0187; second guide information provided after the first guide information using previous data learned from memory i.e. figure 5 item S504).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ) to incorporate the teachings of Hirano with the teachings of IONITA because Hirano teaches in at least paragraph 0014 that using the invention allow a user to easily capture an image sequence from the entire surroundings of a product, thereby improving the invention of IONITA.
Regarding claim 6, as mentioned above in the discussion of claim 5, IONITA in view of Hirano teach all of the limitations of the parent claim. Additionally, Hirano teaches wherein the at least one processor is configured to execute the instructions to: perform the learning so as to increase a generation frequency of the second guide information with a good evaluation result (figures 3 – 4, 7, and paragraph 0047, 0146, and 0187; second guide information provided after the first guide information using previous data learned from memory i.e. figure 5 item S504); and generate the second guide information with the good evaluation result at a higher frequency than that of the second guide information with a bad evaluation result, by using the learning result (figures 3 – 4, 7, bar graph).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ) to incorporate the teachings of Hirano with the teachings of IONITA because Hirano teaches in at least paragraph 0014 that using the invention allow a user to easily capture an image sequence from the entire surroundings of a product, thereby improving the invention of IONITA.
Regarding claim 7, as mentioned above in the discussion of claim 1, IONITA in view of Hirano teach all of the limitations of the parent claim.
However, IONITA fails to teach wherein the at least one processor is configured to execute the instructions to: generate a plurality of pieces of first guide information including parameter different from one another as candidates for the second guide information; and evaluate the plurality of pieces of first guide information for each parameter. Hirano, on the other hand teaches wherein the at least one processor is configured to execute the instructions to: generate a plurality of pieces of first guide information including parameter different from one another as candidates for the second guide information; and evaluate the plurality of pieces of first guide information for each parameter.
More specifically, Hirano wherein the at least one processor is configured to execute the instructions to: generate a plurality of pieces of first guide information including parameter different from one another as candidates for the second guide information (figures 3 – 4, 7; bar guides 312 and 322); and evaluate the plurality of pieces of first guide information for each parameter (figures 3 – 4, 7; bar guides 312 and 322 evaluated for multiple tilting).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ) to incorporate the teachings of Hirano with the teachings of IONITA because Hirano teaches in at least paragraph 0014 that using the invention allow a user to easily capture an image sequence from the entire surroundings of a product, thereby improving the invention of IONITA.
Regarding claim 11, IONITA teaches an information processing method (figures 21 – 22) that is executed by at least one computer (figure 1 item 12), the information processing method comprising: outputting first guide information (paragraph 0031 and 0052 - 0053; figures 4 and 6 items 26 and 44; outputting the guide information); and evaluating first guide information on the basis of a target image (paragraph 0031 and 0053; instructing the user).
However, IONITA fails to teach evaluating the first guide information on the basis of a target image captured before and after an output of the first guide information; determining, based on an evaluation of the first guide information, second guide information different from the first guide information; and outputting the second guide information after output of the first guide information. Hirano, on the other hand teaches evaluating the first guide information on the basis of a target image captured before and after an output of the first guide information; determining, based on an evaluation of the first guide information, second guide information different from the first guide information; and outputting the second guide information after output of the first guide information.
More specifically, Hirano teaches evaluating the first guide information on the basis of a target image captured before and after an output of the first guide information (figures 3 – 4, 7, and paragraph 0047, 0146, and 0187; image capture repeated while providing guide information); determining, based on an evaluation of the first guide information, second guide information different from the first guide information (figures 3 – 4, 7, and paragraph 0047, 0146, and 0187; based on first guide information and movement of camera providing a second guide information); and outputting the second guide information after output of the first guide information (figures 3 – 4, 7, and paragraph 0047, 0146, and 0187; second guide information provided after the first guide information).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ) to incorporate the teachings of Hirano with the teachings of IONITA because Hirano teaches in at least paragraph 0014 that using the invention allow a user to easily capture an image sequence from the entire surroundings of a product, thereby improving the invention of IONITA.
Regarding claim 12, IONITA teaches a non-transitory recording medium on which a computer program that allows at least one computer to execute an information processing method is recorded (paragraphs 0031 - 0034, 0040 - 0044, and 0090), the information processing method including: outputting first guide information (paragraph 0031 and 0052 - 0053; figures 4 and 6 items 26 and 44; outputting the guide information); and evaluating the first guide information on the basis of a target image (paragraph 0031 and 0053; instructing the user).
However, IONITA fails to teach evaluating the first guide information on the basis of a target image captured before and after an output of the first guide information; determining, based on an evaluation of the first guide information, second guide information different from the first guide information; and outputting the second guide information after output of the first guide information. Hirano, on the other hand teaches evaluating the first guide information on the basis of a target image captured before and after an output of the first guide information; determining, based on an evaluation of the first guide information, second guide information different from the first guide information; and outputting the second guide information after output of the first guide information.
More specifically, Hirano teaches evaluating the first guide information on the basis of a target image captured before and after an output of the first guide information (figures 3 – 4, 7, and paragraph 0047, 0146, and 0187; image capture repeated while providing guide information); determining, based on an evaluation of the first guide information, second guide information different from the first guide information (figures 3 – 4, 7, and paragraph 0047, 0146, and 0187; based on first guide information and movement of camera providing a second guide information); and outputting the second guide information after output of the first guide information (figures 3 – 4, 7, and paragraph 0047, 0146, and 0187; second guide information provided after the first guide information).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ) to incorporate the teachings of Hirano with the teachings of IONITA because Hirano teaches in at least paragraph 0014 that using the invention allow a user to easily capture an image sequence from the entire surroundings of a product, thereby improving the invention of IONITA.
Regarding claim 13, as mentioned above in the discussion of claim 1, IONITA in view of Hirano teach all of the limitations of the parent claim. Additionally, Hirano teaches wherein the at least one processor is configured to determine the second guide information from a plurality of candidates for the guide information based on the evaluation of the first guide information (figures 3 – 4, 7, and paragraph 0047, 0146, and 0187; second guide information provided after the first guide information using plurality of previous data learned from memory i.e. figure 5 item S504).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ) to incorporate the teachings of Hirano with the teachings of IONITA because Hirano teaches in at least paragraph 0014 that using the invention allow a user to easily capture an image sequence from the entire surroundings of a product, thereby improving the invention of IONITA.
Regarding claim 14, as mentioned above in the discussion of claim 13, IONITA in view of Hirano teach all of the limitations of the parent claim. Additionally, Hirano teaches wherein each of the plurality of candidates is a same type of guide information (figures 3 – 4, 7; bar guides 312 and 322 evaluated for multiple tilting information i.e. same type of guide information).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ) to incorporate the teachings of Hirano with the teachings of IONITA because Hirano teaches in at least paragraph 0014 that using the invention allow a user to easily capture an image sequence from the entire surroundings of a product, thereby improving the invention of IONITA.
Regarding claim 15, as mentioned above in the discussion of claim 1, IONITA in view of Hirano teach all of the limitations of the parent claim. Additionally, Hirano teaches wherein the first guide information includes information for encouraging a target included in the target image to change a position or a state of the target (figures 3 – 4, 7, and paragraph 0047, 0146, and 0187; image capture repeated while providing guide information), and the at least one processor is configured to evaluate the first guide information based on a change between the target image captured before output of the first guide information and the target image captured after output of the first guide information, the change being associated with the position or the state of the target (figures 3 – 4, 7, and paragraph 0047, 0146, and 0187; based on first guide information and movement of camera providing a second guide information).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ) to incorporate the teachings of Hirano with the teachings of IONITA because Hirano teaches in at least paragraph 0014 that using the invention allow a user to easily capture an image sequence from the entire surroundings of a product, thereby improving the invention of IONITA.
Regarding claim 16, as mentioned above in the discussion of claim 15, IONITA in view of Hirano teach all of the limitations of the parent claim. Additionally, Hirano teaches wherein the at least one processor is configured to generate the first guide information based on the target image (figures 3 – 4 and 7; guide based on tilt of subject).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ) to incorporate the teachings of Hirano with the teachings of IONITA because Hirano teaches in at least paragraph 0014 that using the invention allow a user to easily capture an image sequence from the entire surroundings of a product, thereby improving the invention of IONITA.
Claims 8 – 10 and 17 – 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 [as best understood in view of the 35 U.S.C. 112 rejection above] as being unpatentable over IONITA (US PgPub No. 2021/0182585) in view of Hirano (US PgPub No. 20130202154) in view of Wu (US PgPub No. 2014/0247325).
Regarding claim 8, as mentioned above in the discussion of claim 1, IONITA in view of Hirano teach all of the limitations of the parent claim.
However, IONITA in view of Hirano fail to teach wherein the at least one processor is configured to execute the instructions to: generate a plurality of pieces of guide information including a language different from one another as the guide information; and evaluate the plurality of pieces of guide information for each language. Wu, on the other hand teaches wherein the at least one processor is configured to execute the instructions to: generate a plurality of pieces of guide information including a language different from one another as the guide information; and evaluate the plurality of pieces of guide information for each language.
More specifically, Wu teaches wherein the at least one processor is configured to execute the instructions to: generate a plurality of pieces of guide information including a language different from one another as the guide information (figures 3 – 5; instructions for guidance; note: applicant does not specifically define different languages, therefore different languages can be the letters and icons each considered as a language); and evaluate the plurality of pieces of guide information for each language (figures 3 – 5; instructions for guidance).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ) to incorporate the teachings of Wu with the teachings of IONITA in view of Hirano to have a system with improved visual/audio guidance, thereby improving the guidance of IONITA in view of Hirano.
Regarding claim 9, as mentioned above in the discussion of claim 8, IONITA in view of Hirano in view of Wu teach all of the limitations of the parent claim.
Additionally, Wu teaches wherein the at least one processor is configured to execute the instructions to: output the second guide information so as to be displayed to a target (figures 3 – 5); and evaluate the second guide information on the basis of a line of sight of the target when the second guide information is displayed (figures 3 – 5).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ) to incorporate the teachings of Wu with the teachings of IONITA in view of Hirano to have a system with improved visual/audio guidance, thereby improving the guidance of IONITA in view of Hirano.
Regarding claim 10, as mentioned above in the discussion of claim 8, IONITA in view of Hirano in view of Wu teach all of the limitations of the parent claim.
Additionally, Wu teaches wherein the at least one processor is configured to execute the instructions to: audio-output the second guide information to a target (paragraphs 0035, 0041, 0131 – 0136, and 0149; audio-output); and evaluate the second guide information on the basis of a reaction of the target to an audio of the second guide information (paragraphs 0035, 0041, 0131 – 0136, and 0149; audio-output and guide).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ) to incorporate the teachings of Wu with the teachings of IONITA in view of Hirano to have a system with improved visual/audio guidance, thereby improving the guidance of IONITA in view of Hirano.
Regarding claim 17, as mentioned above in the discussion of claim 8, IONITA in view of Hirano in view of Wu teach all of the limitations of the parent claim. Additionally, Wu teaches wherein the plurality of pieces of guide information include a plurality of pieces of guide information that convey the same meaning in different natural languages (figures 3 – 5; instructions for guidance can be shown with indicators, arrow, arrow colors, flashing arrows, and word i.e. items 305, 320, 330 in figure 3 and so on with figures 4 and 5).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ) to incorporate the teachings of Wu with the teachings of IONITA in view of Hirano to have a system with improved visual/audio guidance, thereby improving the guidance of IONITA in view of Hirano.
Regarding claim 18, as mentioned above in the discussion of claim 8, IONITA in view of Hirano in view of Wu teach all of the limitations of the parent claim. Additionally, Wu teaches wherein the plurality of pieces of guide information include a plurality of pieces of guide wherein the plurality of pieces of guide information include a plurality of pieces of guide information that convey the same meaning in different natural languages (figures 3 – 5; instructions for guidance can be shown with indicators, arrow, arrow colors, flashing arrows, and word i.e. items 305, 320, 330 in figure 3 and so on with figures 4 and 5), and the at least one processor (paragraphs 0021, 0028, 0070 – 0071, and 0091 - 0093) is configured to execute the instructions to evaluate each of the plurality of pieces of guide information separately, for each of the different natural languages (figures 3 – 5; instructions for guidance can be shown with indicators, arrow, arrow colors, flashing arrows, and word i.e. items 305, 320, 330 in figure 3 and so on with figures 4 and 5).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ) to incorporate the teachings of Wu with the teachings of IONITA in view of Hirano to have a system with improved visual/audio guidance, thereby improving the guidance of IONITA in view of Hirano.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Adato (US PgPub No. 20190149725) teaches a camera system providing a user with augmented guidance to capture images of products placed on a store shelving unit, the method including using an image sensor of a mobile device to capture and display in real-time a video stream depicting a store shelving unit, augmenting the video stream with a marking identifying an area of the store shelving unit and receiving an image including an area outside the marked area.
Adachi (US PgPub No. 20110157409) teaches an image quality adjusting device includes an imaging unit capturing a screen of a display terminal using a spectroscopic camera and an RGB camera to obtain image information.
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 extension fee 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 Usman A Khan whose telephone number is (571)270-1131. The examiner can normally be reached on M - Th 5:30 AM - 2 PM, F 5:30 AM - Noon.
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, Sinh Tran can be reached on (571)272-7564. 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.
Usman Khan
/USMAN A KHAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2637
09/23/2026
Prosecution Insights