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.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 08/08/2024, 03/21/2025, 09/26/2025, and 02/20/2026 have been considered by the examiner. The submissions are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(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.
Claims 1 – 7 and 11 – 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by IONITA (US PgPub No. 2021/0182585).
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: generate guide information about capturing a target image on the basis of the target image (figures 3 – 13 item 44; and paragraphs 0031 and 0052); output the guide information (paragraph 0031 and 0052 - 0053; figures 4 and 6 items 26 and 44; output the guide information); and evaluate the guide information on the basis of the target image captured before and after an output of the guide information (paragraph 0031 and 0053; instructing the user).
Regarding claim 2, as mentioned above in the discussion of claim 1, IONITA teaches 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 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 teaches 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 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 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 teaches 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 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 teaches 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 of an evaluation result (paragraphs 0032 – 0033; learned results); and generate the guide information by using a learning result (paragraphs 0032 – 0033; generate guide based on learned results).
Regarding claim 6, as mentioned above in the discussion of claim 5, IONITA teaches 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 the learning so as to increase a generation frequency of the guide information with the good evaluation result (paragraphs 0032 – 0033; generate guide based on learned results); and generate the guide information with a good evaluation result at a higher frequency than that of the guide information with a bad evaluation result, by using the learning result (paragraphs 0032 – 0033; generate guide based on learned results).
Regarding claim 7, as mentioned above in the discussion of claim 1, IONITA teaches all of the limitations of the parent claim. Additionally, IONITA teaches wherein the at least one processor is configured to execute the instructions to: generate a plurality of pieces of first guide information including different parameters as the guide information (figures 2 – 13); and evaluate the plurality of pieces of first guide information for each parameter (figures 2 – 13).
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: generating guide information about capturing a target image on the basis of the target image (figures 3 – 13 item 44; and paragraphs 0031 and 0052); outputting the guide information (paragraph 0031 and 0052 - 0053; figures 4 and 6 items 26 and 44; outputting the guide information); and evaluating the guide information on the basis of the target image captured before and after an output of the guide information (paragraph 0031 and 0053; instructing the user).
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: generating guide information about capturing a target image on the basis of the target image (figures 3 – 13 item 44; and paragraphs 0031 and 0052); outputting the guide information (paragraph 0031 and 0052 - 0053; figures 4 and 6 items 26 and 44; outputting the guide information); and evaluating the guide information on the basis of the target image captured before and after an output of the guide information (paragraph 0031 and 0053; instructing the user).
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 8 – 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over IONITA (US PgPub No. 2021/0182585) in view of Wu (US PgPub No. 20140247325).
Regarding claim 8, as mentioned above in the discussion of claim 1, IONITA teaches 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 second guide information including different languages as the guide information; and evaluate the plurality of pieces of second 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 second guide information including different languages as the guide information; and evaluate the plurality of pieces of second 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 second guide information including different languages 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 second 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 to have a system with improved visual/audio guidance, thereby improving the guidance of IONITA.
Regarding claim 9, as mentioned above in the discussion of claim 8, IONITA 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 to have a system with improved visual/audio guidance, thereby improving the guidance of IONITA.
Regarding claim 10, as mentioned above in the discussion of claim 8, IONITA 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 to have a system with improved visual/audio guidance, thereby improving the guidance of IONITA.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Fukuda (US PgPub No. 20040189829) teaches a system for guidance while image capture.
Ellenby (US PgPub No. 20060190812) teaches a system for guidance while image capture.
Ellenby (US PgPub No. 20110050909) teaches a system for guidance while image capture.
SHINGU (US PgPub No. 20110279697) teaches a system for guidance while image capture.
Inada (US Patent No. 8223220) teaches a system for guidance while image capture.
Hirano (US PgPub No. 20130202154) teaches a system for guidance while image capture.
KIMURA (US PgPub No. 20170208246) teaches a system for guidance while image capture.
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
05/07/2026
Prosecution Insights