DETAILED ACTION
This non-final rejection is responsive to the claims filed 19 September 2024. Claims 1-15 are pending. Claims 1, 14, and 15 are independent claims.
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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Regarding Claim 1
Step 1
According to the first part of the analysis, in the instant case, claims 1-13 are directed to an information processing apparatus, claim 14 is directed to an information processing method, and claim 15 are directed to a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium. Thus, each of the claims falls within one of the four statutory categories (i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter).
Step 2A, Prong One
acquire an image and related matter information indicating each of a plurality of related matters related to the image; and (Mental process – observing an image and noting the contents.)
generate a text based on a relationship between at least two different related matters, based on the image and on the related matter information. (Mental process – composing a caption based on what the user has observed.)
Step 2A Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
An information processing apparatus comprising at least one processor, wherein the processor is configured to: (This is understood to be generic computer equipment. See MPEP 2106.05(f).)
Step 2B
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because when considered separately and in combination, they do not add significantly more (also known as an “inventive concept”) to the exception. The claim recites computing devices which are generic computer components.
Regarding Claim 2
Step 2A Prong One:
(Mental process – deciding what is an addresser and what is an addressee.)
Step 2A Prong Two:
wherein the processor is configured to (This is understood to be generic computer equipment. See MPEP 2106.05(f).)
Step 2B:
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because when considered separately and in combination, they do not add significantly more (also known as an “inventive concept”) to the exception. The claim recites computing devices which are generic computer components.
Regarding Claim 3
Step 2A Prong One:
wherein the related matter is at least one subject included in the image or an owner, a creator, an imaging person, or a viewer of the image. (Mental process – refinement of an element of the abstract idea.)
Step 2A Prong Two:
No additional elements.
Step 2B:
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because when considered separately and in combination, they do not add significantly more (also known as an “inventive concept”) to the exception.
Regarding Claim 4
Step 2A Prong One:
wherein the subject is a person, an animal, or an object. (Mental process – refinement of an element of the abstract idea.)
Step 2A Prong Two:
No additional elements.
Step 2B:
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because when considered separately and in combination, they do not add significantly more (also known as an “inventive concept”) to the exception.
Regarding Claim 5
Step 2A Prong One:
(Mental process – deciding the caption based on a criteria.)
Step 2A Prong Two:
wherein the processor is configured to (This is understood to be generic computer equipment. See MPEP 2106.05(f).)
Step 2B:
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because when considered separately and in combination, they do not add significantly more (also known as an “inventive concept”) to the exception. The claim recites computing devices which are generic computer components.
Regarding Claim 6
Step 2A Prong One:
Does not recite any mental steps.
Step 2A Prong Two:
wherein the processor is configured to (This is understood to be generic computer equipment. See MPEP 2106.05(f).) generate the text using a trained model that is trained in advance to take the image and the related matter information as input and output the text. (Using machine learning is understood to be a field of use limitation. See MPEP 2106.05(h))
Step 2B:
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because when considered separately and in combination, they do not add significantly more (also known as an “inventive concept”) to the exception. The claim recites computing devices which are generic computer components.
Regarding Claim 7
Step 2A Prong One:
(Mental process – deciding the caption based on criteria.)
Step 2A Prong Two:
wherein the processor is configured to (This is understood to be generic computer equipment. See MPEP 2106.05(f).)
Step 2B:
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because when considered separately and in combination, they do not add significantly more (also known as an “inventive concept”) to the exception. The claim recites computing devices which are generic computer components.
Regarding Claim 8
Step 2A Prong One:
(Mental process – deciding the caption based on criteria.)
Step 2A Prong Two:
wherein the processor is configured to (This is understood to be generic computer equipment. See MPEP 2106.05(f).)
Step 2B:
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because when considered separately and in combination, they do not add significantly more (also known as an “inventive concept”) to the exception. The claim recites computing devices which are generic computer components.
Regarding Claim 9
Step 2A Prong One:
(Mental process – deciding the caption based on criteria.)
Step 2A Prong Two:
wherein the processor is configured to (This is understood to be generic computer equipment. See MPEP 2106.05(f).)
Step 2B:
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because when considered separately and in combination, they do not add significantly more (also known as an “inventive concept”) to the exception. The claim recites computing devices which are generic computer components.
Regarding Claim 10
Step 2A Prong One:
Does not recite any mental steps.
Step 2A Prong Two:
wherein the processor is configured to (This is understood to be generic computer equipment. See MPEP 2106.05(f).) receive input of the related matter information. (This step is directed to receiving information, which is understood to be insignificant extra-solution activity and data gathering. See MPEP 2106.05(g).)
Step 2B:
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because when considered separately and in combination, they do not add significantly more (also known as an “inventive concept”) to the exception. The claim recites computing devices which are generic computer components, as well as additional limitations that are directed to receiving or transmitting data over a network, these are well-understood, routine, conventional computer functions as recognized by the court decisions listed in MPEP § 2106.05(d).
Regarding Claim 11
Step 2A Prong One:
(Mental process – deciding the caption based on criteria.)
Step 2A Prong Two:
wherein the processor is configured to (This is understood to be generic computer equipment. See MPEP 2106.05(f).)
Step 2B:
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because when considered separately and in combination, they do not add significantly more (also known as an “inventive concept”) to the exception. The claim recites computing devices which are generic computer components.
Regarding Claim 12
Step 2A Prong One:
(Mental process – deciding the caption based on criteria.)
Step 2A Prong Two:
wherein the processor is configured to (This is understood to be generic computer equipment. See MPEP 2106.05(f).)
Step 2B:
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because when considered separately and in combination, they do not add significantly more (also known as an “inventive concept”) to the exception. The claim recites computing devices which are generic computer components.
Regarding Claim 13
Step 2A Prong One:
(Mental process – looking at different images.)
Step 2A Prong Two:
wherein the processor is configured to (This is understood to be generic computer equipment. See MPEP 2106.05(f).)
Step 2B:
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because when considered separately and in combination, they do not add significantly more (also known as an “inventive concept”) to the exception. The claim recites computing devices which are generic computer components.
Regarding claims 14 and 15, similar analysis applies as claim 1. Non-transitory computer readable storage medium is understood to be generic computer equipment. See MPEP 2106.05(f). The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because when considered separately and in combination, they do not add significantly more (also known as an “inventive concept”) to the exception. The claim recites computing devices which are generic computer components.
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 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Usuki (US 2020/0105038 A1) hereinafter known as Usuki.
Regarding independent claim 1, Usuki teaches:
An information processing apparatus comprising at least one processor, wherein the processor is configured to: acquire an image and related matter information indicating each of a plurality of related matters related to the image; and (Usuki: Figs. 14-16 and ¶[0009], ¶[0113]-¶[0114]; Usuki teaches using a processor and looking at an image and a subject within the image and subjects within different images (related matters).
...
An embodiment of Usuki does not explicitly teach but another embodiment teaches:
generate a text based on a relationship between at least two different related matters, based on the image and on the related matter information. (Usuki: Figs. 14-16 and ¶[0113]-¶[0114]; Usuki teaches looking at an image and a subject within the image and subjects within different images (related matters). Usuki further teaches generating text from the first subject and the second subject of different images.)
Usuki is in the same field of endeavor as the present invention, as it is directed to generating text for images. It would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to a person of ordinary skill in the art, to combine examining an image and matter related to the image to further generate text based on the image the matte related to the image. As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine these teachings because the combination would allow creating a descriptive photobook, as suggested by Usuki: ¶[0004].
Regarding claim 2, Usuki further teaches the information processing apparatus according to claim 1.
Usuki further teaches:
wherein the processor is configured to generate the text in a case of setting at least one of the plurality of related matters as an addresser and setting at least another related matter as an addressee. (Usuki: Figs. 14-16 and ¶[0113]-¶[0117]; Usuki teaches looking at an image and a subject within the image and subjects within different images. The claims don’t describe further the functionality of “addresser” and “addressee”. Accordingly, these terms are interpreted as the various elements of the images, which are interpreted as plurality of related matters.)
Regarding claim 3, Usuki further teaches the information processing apparatus according to claim 1.
Usuki further teaches:
wherein the related matter is at least one subject included in the image or an owner, a creator, an imaging person, or a viewer of the image. (Usuki: Figs. 14-16 and ¶[0113]-¶[0114]; Usuki teaches looking at an image and a subject within the image.)
Regarding claim 4, Usuki further teaches the information processing apparatus according to claim 3.
Usuki further teaches:
wherein the subject is a person, an animal, or an object. (Usuki: Figs. 14-16 and ¶[0113]-¶[0114]; Usuki teaches looking at an image and a subject within the image. The subject is a person.)
Regarding claim 5, Usuki further teaches the information processing apparatus according to claim 1.
Usuki further teaches:
wherein the processor is configured to generate the text with reference to a template of the text that is determined in advance in accordance with a combination of the at least two different related matters. (Usuki: Figs. 14-16 and ¶[0113]-¶[0114]; Usuki teaches using Table 2 to generate the text.)
Regarding claim 6, Usuki further teaches the information processing apparatus according to claim 1.
Usuki further teaches:
wherein the processor is configured to generate the text using a trained model that is trained in advance to take the image and the related matter information as input and output the text. (Usuki: ¶[0097]-¶[0098]; Usuki teaches using machine learning to generate text, wherein the images are used an input.)
Regarding claim 7, Usuki further teaches the information processing apparatus according to claim 1.
Usuki further teaches:
wherein the processor is configured to: receive designation of the at least two related matters among the plurality of related matters; and generate the text corresponding to a relationship between the two designated related matters. (Usuki: Fig. 14; Usuki teaches generating text from first and second subjects, word of subject included in common, and recommended text.)
Regarding claim 8, Usuki further teaches the information processing apparatus according to claim 1.
Usuki further teaches:
wherein the processor is configured to: generate the text for each combination of the at least two different related matters; and receive selection of at least one of the generated texts for each combination of the related matters. (Usuki: Fig. 14 and 11; Usuki teaches generating text from first and second subjects, word of subject included in common, and recommended text. Further, Usuki teaches the user providing a confirmation.)
Regarding claim 9, Usuki further teaches the information processing apparatus according to claim 1.
Usuki further teaches:
wherein the processor is configured to generate the related matter information based on at least one subject included in the image. (Usuki: Figs. 14-16 and ¶[0113]-¶[0114]; Usuki teaches looking at an image and a subject within the image. The subject is a person.)
Regarding claim 10, Usuki further teaches the information processing apparatus according to claim 1.
Usuki further teaches:
wherein the processor is configured to receive input of the related matter information. (Usuki: Figs. 14-16 and ¶[0113]-¶[0114]; Usuki teaches looking at an image and a subject within the image. The subject is interpreted as being input.)
Regarding claim 11, Usuki further teaches the information processing apparatus according to claim 1.
Usuki further teaches:
wherein the processor is configured to: acquire accessory information of the image; and generate the related matter information based on the accessory information. (Usuki: Fig. 14; Usuki teaches generating text from first and second subjects, word of subject included in common, and recommended text.)
Regarding claim 12, Usuki further teaches the information processing apparatus according to claim 1.
Usuki further teaches:
wherein the processor is configured to: acquire accessory information of the image; and generate the text based on the image, the related matter information, and the accessory information. (Usuki: Fig. 14; Usuki teaches generating text from first and second subjects, word of subject included in common, and recommended text.)
Regarding claim 13, Usuki further teaches the information processing apparatus according to claim 1.
Usuki further teaches:
wherein the processor is configured to: acquire a plurality of images to which the same related matter is related; and generate the text corresponding to a comparison among the plurality of images. (Usuki: Fig. 14; Usuki teaches generating text from first and second subjects of different images.)
Regarding claims 14 and 15; these claims recite an information processing method and a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium that performs the function of claim 1; therefore, the same rationale for rejection applies.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEX OLSHANNIKOV whose telephone number is (571)270-0667. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30-6.
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, Scott Baderman can be reached at 571-272-3644. 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.
/ALEKSEY OLSHANNIKOV/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2118
Prosecution Insights