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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of papers submitted under 35 USC 119(a)-(d), which papers have been placed of record in the application file.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement submitted on March 18, 2025 has been considered by the examiner and made of record in the application file.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially createddoctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent theunjustified or improper timewise extension of the "right to exclude" granted by a patentand to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutoryobviousness-type double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claimsare not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinctfrom the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipatedby, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir.1985); In re Van Omum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); and In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d)may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a nonstatutorydouble patenting ground provided the conflicting application or patent either is shown tobe commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result ofactivities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement.
Effective January 1, 1994, a registered attorney or agent of record may sign aterminal disclaimer. A terminal disclaimer signed by the assignee must fully comply with37 CFR 3.73(b).
Claims 1-10 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obvious-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-10 of U.S. Patent 12,165,385 in view of Shibahara et al. (US Patent 11,270,001 B2). Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other as 12,165,385 in view of Shibahara teaches each and every element with regard to claims 1-10.
Please see table below for independent claim 1:
18/954,304
12,136,269
Claim Interpretation
1.An information processing apparatus comprising:
acquire the number of training images including an object belonging to one of a plurality of classes having an order relation, and
acquire the number of training images for each of the plurality
of classes;
determine, as a combination target class to be combined, a class with the number of training images that is smaller than a threshold value among the plurality of classes;
combine the combination target class with an adjacent class in
the order relation; and
determine a class of an object included in an input image using a determiner trained using the training image, based on a combination class obtained in the combining.
1.An information processing apparatus comprising:
acquire the number of training images including an object belonging to one of a plurality of classes having an order relation,
acquiring the number of training images for each of the plurality of classes;
determine, as a combination target class to be combined, a class with the number of training images that is smaller than a threshold value among the plurality of classes; combine the combination target class with an adjacent class in the order relation; and
determine a class of an object included in an input image using a determiner trained using the training image based on a combination class combined by the combination unit.
As can be seen with the side-by-side comparison, the only difference is slight word variations and 12,165,385 recites units to perform the functions whereas the present application recites a memory and processor with instructions to perform the functions. Please see Shibahara below.
12,165,385 substantially discloses the claimed invention but fails to teach a processor; and a memory containing instructions.
However, Shibahara teaches a processor; and a memory containing instructions (column 13 lines 6-13).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have incorporated the teachings of Shibahara into the invention of 12,165,385 in order to quickly and accurately analyze contents to identify malicious codes and identify redirect relationships.
Please see the following table for the dependent claims:
18/954,304
12,165,385
Claim Interpretation
2.The information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the threshold
value is set based on input from a user.
2.The information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the threshold value is set based on input from a user.
Same.
3.The information processing apparatus according to claim 2, wherein a specific class among the plurality of classes is not determined as the combination target class even in a case where the number of training images including an object belonging to the specific class is smaller than the threshold value.
3.The information processing apparatus according to claim 2, wherein a specific class among the plurality of classes is not determined as the combination target class even in a case where the number of training images of the specific class is smaller than the threshold value.
No substantial difference.
4.The information processing apparatus according to claim 3, wherein each of the plurality of classes indicates a damage level of a part of a structure; and wherein the specific class is a class of a boundary of determining whether repair is to be performed.
4.The information processing apparatus according to claim 3, wherein each of the plurality of classes indicates a damage level of a part of a structure; and wherein the specific class is a class of a boundary of determining whether repair is to be performed.
Same.
5. The information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the instructions further cause the processor to: train the determiner using the training image to determine which class the object included in the input image belongs to, the combination class or classes that are not combined among the plurality of classes.
5.The information processing apparatus according to claim 1, further comprising a training unit configured to train the determiner using the training image to determine which class from the combination class combined by the combination unit and the plurality of classes that is not combined by the combination unit the object included in the input image belongs to.
No substantial difference.
6.The information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein in a case where two classes are adjacent in
the order relation to the combination target class, one of the two classes adjacent in the order relation to the combination target class is combined with the combination target class, the one having a smaller number of training images than the other.
6.The information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein in a case where two classes are adjacent in
the order relation to the combination target class determined by the first determination unit, the combination unit combines one of the two classes adjacent in the order relation to the combination target class with the combination target class, the one having a smaller number of training images than the other.
No substantial difference, just word variations.
7.The information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the instructions further cause the processor to: receive a user instruction and combine the combination target class with an adjacent class in the order relation on a basis of the user instruction, wherein in a case where the user instruction is received, the combination target class is combined with the adjacent class in the order relation.
7.The information processing apparatus according to claim 1, further comprising a reception unit configured to receive a user instruction to combine the combination target class with an adjacent class in the order relation, wherein in response to when the reception unit receives the instruction, the combination unit combines the combination target class with the adjacent class in the order relation.
No substantial difference.
8.The information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the instructions further cause the processor to: display the training image for the combination target class and the training image for the adjacent class in the order relation.
8.The information processing apparatus according to claim 1, further comprising a display control unit configured to display the training image for the combination target class and the training image for the adjacent class in the order relation.
No substantial difference.
9.The information processing apparatus according to claim 1, the instructions further cause the processor to: identify, in a case where the object included in the input image is determined to belong to the combination class, whether the object included in the input image belongs to the combination target class or to the adjacent class in the order relation based on a user operation.
9.The information processing apparatus according to claim 1, further comprising an identification unit configured to identify, in response to when the second determination unit determines that the object included in the input image belongs to the combination class combined by the combination unit, whether the object included in the input image belongs to the combination target class or to the adjacent class in the order relation based on a user operation.
No substantial difference.
10. The information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein each of the plurality of
classes indicates an age, a development level of a disease, or a damage level of a part of a structure.
10. The information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein each of the plurality of classes indicates an age, a development level of a disease, or a damage level of a part of a structure.
Same.
Claims 11 and 12 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory anticipation-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 11 and 12 of U.S. Patent 12,165,385. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other as 12,165,385 anticipates each claims 11 and 12.
Please see table below for independent claim 11 (and similarly applied to claim 12):
18/954,304
12,165,385
Claim Interpretation
11.A class determination method comprising:
acquiring the number of
training images including an object belonging to one of a plurality of classes having an order relation, and acquiring the number of training images being determined for each of the plurality of classes;
determining, as a combination target class to be combined, a class with the number of training images that is smaller than a threshold value among the plurality of classes;
combining the combination
target class with an adjacent
class in the order relation; and determining a class of an object included in an image using a determiner trained using the training image based on a combination class obtained in the combining.
11.A class determination method comprising:
determining the number of training images including an object belonging to one of a plurality of classes having an order relation, the number of training images being determined for each of the plurality of classes;
determining, as a combination target class to be combined, a class with the number of training images that is smaller than a threshold value among the plurality of classes;
combining the combination target class with an adjacent class in the order relation; and determining a class of an object included in an image using a determiner trained using the training image based on a combination class combined by the combination unit.
As can be seen with the side-by-side comparison, the only difference is slight word variations, however, 12,165,385 clearly anticipates claims 11 and 12.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-12 are allowed over the prior art.
Applicant’s independent claims 1, 11 and 12 each recites a particular combination of elements, which is neither taught nor suggested by the prior art. Shibahara and a thorough search in the art disclose various aspects and features of applicant's claimed invention. However, Shibahara and a thorough search in the art do not disclose or suggest the specific combination of acquire the number of training images including an object belonging to one of a plurality of classes having an order relation, and acquire the number of training images for each of the plurality of classes; determine, as a combination target class to be combined, a class with the number of training images that is smaller than a threshold value among the plurality of classes; combine the combination target class with an adjacent class in the order relation; and determine a class of an object included in an input image using a determiner trained using the training image, based on a combination class obtained in the combining. Moreover, one of ordinary skill in the art would not have been motivated to arrive at applicant's claimed invention unless one was using applicant's claims and specification as a roadmap, thus using impermissible hindsight.
As allowable subject matter has been indicated, applicant's reply must either comply with all formal requirements or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with. See 37 CFR 1.111(b) and MPEP § 707.07(a).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER M BRANDT whose telephone number is (571)270-1098. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 8:00-5:00.
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, Anthony Addy can be reached at 571-272-7795. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER M BRANDT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2645 July 24, 2026
Prosecution Insights