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 1-17 are pending in the application.
Priority
The present application claims foreign priority benefits from JP2024-048569 filed on 03/25/2024. The certified copy of the priority document was electronically retrieved on 04/16/2025.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 03/18/2025 and 09/04/2025 is considered and attached.
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. The following table lists the occurrences that use means and corresponding structure and associated algorithm.
Claim no.
112(f) elements
Corresponding structure (PGPub)
Associated algorithm (PGPub)
1
1
1
1
a determining unit configured to determine
a concealing unit configured to execute
an applying unit configured to apply
a training unit configured to perform
FIG. 1; para. [0026]-[0027]
FIG. 2-7; para. [0025], [0030]-[0033], [0036]-[0060], [0102]-[0105], [0112]-[0120], [0127]
4
a management unit configured to manage
FIG. 1; para. [0026]-[0027]
FIG. 2; para. [0029]-[0030], [0033], [0043], [0060]
5
an image similarity calculating unit configured to calculate
FIG. 1; para. [0026]-[0027]
FIG. 3A, 9A-9B; para. [0069]-[0075], [0089], [0122]-[0125], [0131]-[0132]
6
a label similarity calculating unit configured to calculate
FIG. 1; para. [0026]-[0027]
FIG. 3A, 8; para. [0078]-[0083],
7
a similar image generating unit configured to convert
FIG. 1; para. [0026]-[0027]
FIG. 3A, 8; para. [0085]-[0089]
8
a calculating unit configured to calculate
FIG. 1; para. [0026]-[0027]
FIG. 3A; para. [0069-0070], [0074], [0089], [0122], [0125]
9
a score calculating unit configured to calculate
FIG. 1; para. [0026]-[0027]
Para. [0095]-[0096], [0103], [0105]
12
a converting unit configured to image-convert
FIG. 1; para. [0026]-[0027]
FIG. 3A; para. [0031]-[0032], [0038]-[0039], [0088]
13
13
a calculating unit configured to calculate
a parameter determining unit configured to determine
FIG. 1; para. [0026]-[0027]
FIG. 3C; para. [0122]-[0125]
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.
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 § 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 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 16-17
Analysis for claim 16 is provided in the following. Claim 16 is reproduced in the following (annotation added):
16. A method for controlling an information processing apparatus comprising:
(a) determining a concealed region for concealing personal information in a first image;
(b) executing concealing processing on the first image on a basis of the concealed region;
(c) applying label information to the concealed region;
(d) displaying the label information superimposed on a second image, which is a concealed image obtained by executing the concealing processing; and
(e) performing training using the first image.
Step 1: Evaluating whether the claim belongs to one of the statutory categories.
Claim 16 recites a plurality of acts. Thus, the claim is directed to a process, which is one of the statutory categories of invention (Step 1: YES).
Step 2A Prong One: Evaluating whether the claim recites a judicial exception (an abstract idea enumerated in the 2019 PEG, a law of nature, or a natural phenomenon). If no exception is recited, the claim is eligible. This concludes the eligibility analysis. If the claim recites an exception, go to Step 2A Prong Two.
Claim 16 recites an abstract idea in the mental processes group. In claim 16, under broadest reasonable interpretation, steps (a)-(c) can be practically performed in the human mind and/or by using generic computer tools. Note “performing training”, under BRI, can be practically performed mentally, such using the first image to train a human. (Step 2A Prong One YES)
Step 2A Prong Two: Evaluating whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception. This evaluation is performed by (a) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception, and (b) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application. If the answer to (a) is YES and (b) is NO, go to Step 2B; if the answer to (a) and (b) is YES, go to PATHWAY B, i.e., the claim is not directed to a judicial exception and the claim is eligible.
In claim 16, step d) “displaying the label information superimposed on a second image” recites data output, an insignificant extra-solution activity. Therefore, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. (Step 2A Prong Two NO).
Step 2B: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole amounts to significantly more than the recited exception, i.e., whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, adds an inventive concept to the claim.
In claim 16, step d) “displaying the label information superimposed on a second image” recites data output, an insignificant extra-solution activity, elements that should be re-evaluated in Step 2B. Step d) recites data output in a high level of generality, which is well-understood, routine and conventional activity. These additional elements, taken individually and in combination, do not result in the claim, as a whole, amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05. (Step 2B: NO). Claim 16 is not eligible.
Claim 17 recites: “A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing a program for causing a computer to execute a method for controlling an information processing apparatus comprising: determining a concealed region for concealing personal information in a first image; executing concealing processing on the first image on a basis of the concealed region; applying label information to the concealed region; displaying the label information superimposed on a second image, which is a concealed image obtained by executing the concealing processing; and performing training using the first image”.
Claim 17 recites similar steps as recited in claim 16 and similarly recites mental processes. The “displaying the label information superimposed on a second image” step recites an insignificant extra-solution activity that is a well-understood, routine and conventional activity. The recited computer components, such as computer and computer-readable storage medium and stored program, are recited in high level of generality, and merely add generic computer components to perform the acts and therefore fail to provide an improvement to the technology or technical field. Claim 17 is not eligible.
Claim 1
Claim 1 is reproduced in the following (Annotation added).
1. An information processing apparatus comprising:
a determining unit configured to determine a concealed region for concealing personal information in a first image;
a concealing unit configured to execute concealing processing on the first image on a basis of the concealed region;
an applying unit configured to apply label information to the concealed region;
a display unit configured to display the label information superimposed on a second image, which is a concealed image obtained by executing the concealing processing; and
a training unit configured to perform training using the first image.
Claim 1 recites similar steps as in method claim 16. Note above recited units and associated function, when interpreted under broadest reasonable interpretation, recite mental processes without significantly more. However, under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) claim interpretation, the corresponding algorithm of the above identified a determining unit, a concealing unit, an applying unit and a training unit is being read into the units respectively. As described in the specification, the following algorithm is related to the above units: FIG. 2-7; para. [0025], [0030]-[0033], [0036]-[0060], [0102]-[0105], [0112]-[0120], [0127]. These figures and paragraphs describe a specific manner of determining a concealed region, execution of concealing processing, applying label information to the concealed region and performing training using the first image. Therefore these limitations provide improvements to the functioning of a computer, and apply or use the judicial exception in a meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. Claim 1 is eligible.
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.
Claim(s) 16-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by SONG (WO 2022039318 A1, published 2/24/2022).
As per claim 16, SONG teaches a method (Abstract) for controlling an information processing apparatus (FIG. 1) comprising:
determining a concealed region for concealing personal information in a first image (FIG. 1-2; para. [0012], [0030], [0038]-[0039], [0042]);
executing concealing processing on the first image on a basis of the concealed region (FIG. 4; para. [0012], [0030], [0040], [0043]-[0047]);
applying label information to the concealed region (FIG. 2-4; para. [0012], [0036]-[0038]);
displaying the label information superimposed on a second image, which is a concealed image obtained by executing the concealing processing; (FIG. 4; FIG. 6-7; para. [0012], [0054], [0062] “The output unit (134) allows an administrator to view only the road driving video with the masking area included in the masking area information (410) applied using a display”; para. [0063]); and
performing training using the first image (FIG. 1 #130 “learning device”; para. [0032]-[0033], [0049]-[0051]).
Claim 17, an independent medium claim, recites steps corresponding to method claim 16. Therefore the recited steps of 17 are mapped to SONG in the same manner as corresponding steps in claim 16. SONG additionally teaches computer system elements, such as non-transitory computer-readable storage medium and a computer (FIG. 1; para. [0027]-[0028]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-15 are allowed.
The following is Examiner’s reasons for identification of allowable subject matter.
In independent claim 1, “a determining unit configured to determine”, “a concealing unit configured to execute”, “an applying unit configured to apply” and “a training unit configured to perform” are interpreted as invoking 35 USC 112 (f) claim interpretation. Since these units are computer-implemented elements, the corresponding algorithms in the specification are being read into the elements interpreted under 112(f) as identified above. Specifically, at least FIG. 2-7; para. [0025], [0030]-[0033], [0036]-[0060], [0102]-[0105], [0112]-[0120], [0127] of the instant specification contains allowable subject matter when taken in combination with the entirety of the claim.
The following prior art is considered closest to the current application.
Under broadest reasonable interpretation, as per claim 1, SONG (WO 2022039318 A1, published 2/24/2022) teaches an information processing apparatus (Abstract; FIG. 1; para. [0027]-[0028]) comprising:
a determining unit (FIG. 1 #126 “detection unit”; para. [0034]) configured to determine a concealed region for concealing personal information in a first image (FIG. 1-2; para. [0012], [0030], [0038]-[0039], [0042]);
a concealing unit (FIG. 1 #128 “masking execution unit”) configured to execute concealing processing on the first image on a basis of the concealed region (FIG. 4; para. [0012], [0030], [0040], [0043]-[0047]);
an applying unit (FIG. 1 #124 “annotation unit”, #126 “detection unit”; para. [0036]-[0039]) configured to apply label information to the concealed region (FIG. 2-4; para. [0012], [0036]-[0038]);
a display unit (FIG. 1 #134 “output unit”; para. [0062] “The output unit (134) allows an administrator to view only the road driving video with the masking area included in the masking area information (410) applied using a display”) configured to display the label information superimposed on a second image, which is a concealed image obtained by executing the concealing processing; (FIG. 4; FIG. 6-7; para. [0012], [0054], [0062]-[0063]); and
a training unit (FIG. 1 #130 “learning device”) configured to perform training using the first image (para. [0032]-[0033], [0049]-[0051]).
Further, prior art Jeong (US 11423643 B1) teaches a method for generating a training image to be used in training a learning network. The method of generating the training image includes steps of: (a) a labeling device, in response to acquiring an original image, (i) inputting the original image into an image recognition network to detect privacy-related regions from the original image, (ii) adding dummy regions, different from the detected privacy-related regions, onto the original image, and (iii) setting the privacy-related regions and the dummy regions as obfuscation-expected regions which represent regions to be obfuscated in the original image; (b) the labeling device generating an obfuscated image by obfuscating the obfuscation-expected regions; and (c) the labeling device labeling the obfuscated image to be corresponding to a task of the learning network to be trained, to thereby generate the training image to be used in training the learning network. See Abstract, FIG. 2-3, col. 8 ln 27-col. 10 ln 26.
Prior art, either applied alone, or in combination with, fails to teach or suggest all the limitations as recited in claim 1 in view of 35 USC 112(f) claim interpretation.
Conclusion
Prior art searched but not cited is recorded in PTO-892.
Additional prior Guest et al. (US 11546141 B1) discloses techniques for cryptographically protecting personally identifiable information in images and videos. An image may be obtained. One or more regions in the image may be detected based on an object detection algorithm. Pixels for each region of the one or more regions may be encrypted using a symmetric encryption technique and an initialization vector. The encrypted pixels for each region of the one or more regions may be written back into the image. A symmetric key of the symmetric encryption technique and the initialization vector may be encrypted using an asymmetric encryption technique. Metadata of the image may be updated to store the encrypted symmetric key and the encrypted initialization vector. See Abstract, FIG. 1-5, col. ln 36-col. 10 ln 40.
Contact
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to XUEMEI G CHEN whose telephone number is (571)270-3480. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-6pm.
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, John M Villecco can be reached on (571) 272-7319. 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.
/XUEMEI G CHEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2661
Prosecution Insights