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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This communication is a non-Final office action in merits. Claims 1-11, after preliminary amendment, are presently pending and have been elected and considered below.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 11/21/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claim 7 is 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 7 recites: The information processing apparatus according to claim 5, wherein the at least one processor that is configured to execute the instructions to determine a predetermined number of elements in descending order of the gradient information, to be the element serving as the perturbing target.
The claim limitation is ambiguous and confusing in exactly which element in a predetermined number of elements in descending order of the gradient information being selected as the perturbing target?
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 of this title, 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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or
nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-2, 4-5, 8-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2007/0297650 Al, Rabinovich et al. (hereinafter Rabinovich) in view of US 2022/0180242 A1, Lee et al. (hereinafter Lee).
As to claim 1, Rabinovich discloses an information processing apparatus comprising:
at least one memory that is configured to store instructions; and
at least one processor that is configured to execute the instructions to:
determine an element serving as a perturbing target in first information (Fig 1; pars 0006, 0024, 0026, target image being identified to apply guidedly perturbation);
apply a perturbation with magnitude based on values of one or more elements surrounding the element serving as the perturbing target, to the element serving as the perturbing target (Figs 1, 3; pars 0006, 0014, 0033, a perturbation being applied with pre-determined magnitude or value); and
assess a risk in authentication processing based on a result of the authentication processing of matching the first information to which the perturbation is applied, with second information that is different from the first information (Figs 1, 3; pars 0006-0007, 0014, 0016, 0033, perturbed images being authenticated or assessed whether the images of a person’s facial image still recognizable).
Rabinovich does not expressly disclose the perturbation magnitude being based on values of one or more elements surrounding the target element.
Lee, in the same or similar field of endeavor, further teaches the perturbation/noise introduced with magnitude/level associated with surrounding and subset image pixel values (Fig 8; pars 0005, 0143-0146, 0149, 0154)
Therefore, consider Rabinovich and Lee’s teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of skill in the art before the filing date of invention to incorporate Lee’s teachings in Rabinovich’s apparatus to perform a perturbation with proper perturbation values corresponding to background contents.
As to claim 2, Rabinovich as modified discloses the information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the at least one processor that is configured to execute the instructions to: determine the magnitude of the perturbation applied to the element serving as the perturbing target such that a difference between a calculated value calculated based on the value of the element surrounding the element serving as the perturbing target (Lee: pars 0034-0035, 0138, 0143, 0160, perturbation with similar characteristic/classes/subset and relative level that minimizes the change in boundary being applied/inserted), and the magnitude of the perturbation applied to the element serving as the perturbing target is less than or equal to a predetermined value (Lee: pars 0067, 0143, 0146, 0171, predetermined perturbation value/range of number of classes), and apply the perturbation with the magnitude to the element serving as the perturbing target (Lee: par 0034, 0138, 0160).
As to claim 4, Rabinovich as modified discloses the information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the first information is a first image including a first living body, and the second information is a second image including a second living body (Rabinovich: Figs 1, 3, both information related to facial information of people).
As to claim 5, Rabinovich as modified discloses the information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the at least one processor that is configured to execute the instructions to calculate a degree of similarity between a feature quantity of the first information and a feature quantity of the second information (Rabinovich: pars 0003-0005, 0018, 0033, measuring degree of similarity of features); and
calculate gradient information indicating a gradient of the degree of similarit
determine the element serving as the perturbing target based on the gradient information (Lee: pars 0036, 0049, 0061, determining a right level of noise or perturbation based on a determined gradient).
As to claim 8, Rabinovich as modified discloses the information processing apparatus according to claim 5, wherein the at least one processor that is configured to execute the instructions to determine an element in which the gradient information is greater than a predetermined threshold, to be the element serving as the perturbing target (Lee: pars 0160).
As to claim 9, Rabinovich as modified discloses the information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the at least one processor that is configured to execute the instructions to calculate a false authentication probability in the authentication processing and assesses the risk in the authentication processing based on the false authentication probability (Lee: pars 0067, 0138, 0143, 0146).
As to claim 10, it is a method claim necessitated claim 1. Rejection of claim 1 is therefore incorporated herein.
As to claim 11, it recites a non-transitory recording medium with computer program executed to perform functions recited in claim 1. Rejection of claim 1 is therefore incorporated herein.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Rabinovich in view of Lee and further in view of US 2019/0019273 A1, Aoki (hereinafter Aoki).
As to claim 3, Rabinovich as modified discloses the information processing apparatus according to claim 2, disclose to apply a perturbation with magnitude based on a mean value of the elements surrounding the element serving as the perturbing target, to the element serving as the perturbing target but does not expressly the perturbation with magnitude based on a mean value of the elements surrounding the element serving as the perturbing target. An ordinary skill in the art would appreciate and understand that the magnitude may be selected based on its instant value or more often its means or average value to provide more desirable or smoother one statistically. Nevertheless, Aoki, in the same or similar field of endeavor, additionally teaches to calculate the magnitude involving an average/mean value of surrounding elements (e.g. pixels) (pars 0005, 0030, 0048). Therefore, consider Rabinovich as modified and Aoki’s teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of skill in the art before the filing date of invention to incorporate Aoki’s teachings in Rabinovich as modified’s information processing apparatus to provide a perturbation based on a mean or average value of surrounding elements.
Claims 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Rabinovich in view of Lee and further in view of US 2024/0331449 A1, Cintas et al. (hereinafter Cintas).
As to claim 6, Rabinovich as modified discloses the information processing apparatus according to claim 5, but does expressly disclose to determine one element with a highest gradient information, to be the element serving as the perturbing target.
Cintas, in the same or similar field of endeavor, further teaches identifying the input data (e.g. element) with highest gradient magnitude (par 0045). Therefore, consider Rabinovich as modified and Cintas’s teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of skill in the art before the filing date of invention to incorporate Cintas’s teachings in Rabinovich as modified’s apparatus to identify or select a target element for perturbation.
As to claim 7, Rabinovich as modified discloses the information processing apparatus according to claim 5, wherein the at least one processor that is configured to execute the instructions to determine a predetermined number of elements in descending order of the gradient information, to be the element serving as the perturbing target (Cintas: par 0043).
Examiner’s Note
Examiner has cited particular column, line number, paragraphs and/or figure(s) in the reference(s) as applied to the claims for the convenience of the Applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant in preparing responses, to fully consider the reference(s) in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to QUN SHEN whose telephone number is (571)270-7927. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri 8:30-5:50 PT.
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, Amandeep Saini can be reached on 571-272-3382. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/QUN SHEN/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2662
Prosecution Insights