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 .
Claims 1 – 19 are pending in this application.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), which papers have been placed of record in the file.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 08/02/2024 and 12/31/2024 were filed in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97 and 1.98. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Applicant has provided an explanation of relevance of cited document(s) JP 2000-175031 A on page 2 of the specification.
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 Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitations are: Input Unit, Determination Unit, Processing Unit, Output Unit in claims 1 and 8.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
Input Unit is read by the examiner as being item 503 of Fig. 6, described as a controller unit in which execute input processing of input image data, Specification on ¶0056.
Determination Unit is read by the examiner as being item 701 of Fig. 7, described as AI-Based Image Identification Server in which determines whether or not the image data is created by the AI-based image generation technology, Specification on ¶0052 and/or ¶0061.
Processing Unit is read by the examiner as being item 609 of Fig. 7, described as an image processing unit controlled by a CPU 601, Specification on ¶0058, ¶0062 and/or ¶0075.
Output Unit is read by the examiner as being item 504 of Fig. 6, described as a print engine, Specification on ¶0057.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
Claims 1 - 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kondo (U.S PreGrant Publication No. 2021/0374916 A1, hereinafter ‘Kondo’).
With respect to claim 1, Kondo teaches an image processing apparatus (i.e., an image processing apparatus, abstract) comprising: an input unit configured to execute input processing of inputting image data (e.g., input processing of inputting image data, abstract, ¶0005, ¶0081, ¶0095, Figs. 3A – 3C); a determination unit (e.g., determining means, ¶0068) configured to make a determination whether or not the image data input by the input processing is generated on a basis of a learning model (e.g., configured to determine whether or not the input image data is generated based on a learning model, ¶0068 - ¶0070, Fig. 5); and an output unit configured to not execute output processing of outputting the image data in a case where it is determined by the determination unit that the image data is generated on a basis of the learning model (e.g., when it’s determined that the input image data is generated or completed based on the learning model, don’t execute a step of S110 again,¶0068 - ¶0070, Fig. 5), and execute the output processing in a case where it is determined by the determination unit that the image data is not generated on a basis of the learning model (e.g., otherwise, when it’s determined that the input image data is not generated nor completed based on the learning model, execute the step of S110 ¶0068 - ¶0070, Fig. 5).
With respect to claim 2, Kondo teaches the image processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the output processing is printing processing of printing the image data (e.g., this corresponds to a printing process for the input image data to be outputted, where an output image data corresponds to the input image data, ¶0071, ¶0082 with ¶0096).
With respect to claim 3, Kondo teaches the image processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the output processing is transmission processing of transmitting the image data to an apparatus different from the image processing apparatus (e.g., the output image data as print data is transmitted to a printer 300 (as a different apparatus), in which is a different apparatus, ¶0095, Fig. 6).
With respect to claim 4, Kondo teaches the image processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the determination unit makes the determination on a basis of whether or not the image data includes identification information identifying the image data as being generated on a basis of the learning model (e.g., image data may include identification or ID used to determine whether or not image is generated based on the learning model, ¶0024, ¶0030, ¶0038, ¶0054 - ¶0056, ¶0068).
With respect to claim 5, Kondo teaches the image processing apparatus according to claim 4, wherein the determination unit determines that the image data is generated on a basis of the learning model in a case where the image data includes the identification information, and determines that the image data is not generated on a basis of the learning model in a case where the image data does not include the identification information(e.g., image data may include identification or ID used to determine whether or not image is generated based on the learning model, ¶0024, ¶0030, ¶0038, ¶0054 - ¶0056, ¶0068).
With respect to claim 6, Kondo teaches the image processing apparatus according to claim 4, wherein the identification information is digitized, and the determination unit determines that the image data is generated on a basis of the learning model in a case where a numerical value of the identification information is equal to or greater than a threshold value, and determines that the image data is not generated on a basis of the learning model in a case where the numerical value of the identification information is less than the threshold value (e.g., the numerical values are the RGB values required to determine whether or not values are equal, greater, or less than certain parameters (e.g., threshold), Figs. 3A – 3C & Figs. 10A – 10B, ¶0036, ¶0066, ¶0083, ¶0120 - ¶0121).
With respect to claim 7, Kondo teaches the image processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the image processing apparatus is communicably connected to an external apparatus configured to transmit the image data to the image processing apparatus, and the output unit executes the output processing on the image data input through the input unit from the external apparatus (e.g., an external apparatus can be inherently also considered as a well-known cloud server that is connected to said image processing apparatus in order to retrieve/call image data to be input and then output, ¶0025, ¶0075 and/or ¶0137; please note that this depend on claim 1 and can be considered as another external apparatus).
With respect to claim 8, Kondo teaches an image processing apparatus (i.e., an image processing apparatus, abstract) comprising: an input unit configured to execute input processing of inputting image data (e.g., input processing of inputting image data, abstract, ¶0005, ¶0081, ¶0095, Figs. 3A – 3C); a determination unit (e.g., determining means, ¶0068) configured to make a determination whether or not the image data input by the input processing is generated on a basis of a learning model (e.g., configured to determine whether or not the input image data is generated based on a learning model, ¶0068 - ¶0070, Fig. 5); a processing unit (e.g., an arithmetic processing means, ¶0042) configured to add processing to the image data in a case where it is determined that the image data is generated on a basis of the learning model (e.g., configured to add/apply process to the image data when it’s determined that the image data is generated by the learning model, ¶0042 - ¶0043, ¶0049); and an output unit configured to execute output processing of outputting the image data to which the processing is added (when it’s determined that the input image data is not generated nor completed based on the learning model, execute the step of S110 ¶0068 - ¶0070, Fig. 5).
With respect to claim 9, it's rejected for the similar reasons as those described in connection with claim 2.
With respect to claim 10, Kondo teaches the image processing apparatus according to claim 9, wherein in a case where the image data includes identification information identifying the image data as being generated on a basis of the learning model, the processing unit adds processing on the image data to visualize that the image data includes the identification information in a printed matter of the image data acquired by the printing processing (e.g., Image data includes identification or ID to be further add/apply other processing to the image data to be printed, ¶0055 - ¶0059 with ¶0080 - ¶0083).
With respect to claim 11, it's rejected for the similar reasons as those described in connection with claim 3.
With respect to claim 12, it's rejected for the similar reasons as those described in connection with claim 10.
With respect to claim 13, Kondo teaches the image processing apparatus according to claim 8, wherein in a case where it is determined by the determination unit that the image data is not generated on a basis of the learning model, the output unit outputs the image data without the processing unit adding processing to the image data (Figs. 7 & 8, in comparison, show examples of performing an additional process (S315B) or not; disregarding the result of S310 when determining that a target pixel is not to be subjected to a smoothing process, ¶0081 - ¶0083).
With respect to claim 14, Kondo teaches the image processing apparatus according to claim 8, wherein the determination unit makes the determination on a basis of whether or not the image data includes identification information identifying the image data as being generated on a basis of the learning model (e.g., the image data ID depends on a determination of category of the input image, ¶0029 - ¶0030, ¶0054, ¶0077, ¶0080 - ¶0083 and ¶0133).
With respect to claim 15, it's rejected for the similar reasons as those described in connection with claim 7.
With respect to claims 16 - 17, these are method claims corresponding to the apparatus claims 1 and 8, respectively. Therefore, these are rejected for the same reasons as the apparatus claims 1 and 8, respectively.
With respect to claims 18 and 19, Kondo notes that the invention may be realized through the execution by a CPU (e.g., a controller, ¶0004) of instruction codes (e.g., set of program instructions, ¶0004) stored in a non-transitory computer readable storage medium (e.g., stored in a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, ¶0004). The further limitations are met by the teachings as previously discussed with respect to claims 1 and 8, respectively.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JUAN M GUILLERMETY whose telephone number is (571)270-3481. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00AM - 5:00PM.
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, Benny Q TIEU can be reached at 571-272-7490. 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.
/JUAN M GUILLERMETY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2682
Prosecution Insights