DETAILED ACTION
This office action is responsive to the above identified application filed 08/19/20205. The application contains claims 1-20, all examined and rejected.
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.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1: Claim(s) 1-8 is/are system claims. Claim(s) 9-14 is/are method claim. Claim(s) 15-20 is/are non-transitory computer-readable medium. Therefore, claims 1-20 are directed to either a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter.
Step 2A Prong 1:
Claim(s) 1, 9 and 15 recites the following limitation(s):
receive an input of appearance features of a plurality of items about a tracking target person based on a witness's statement, (Mental process of observation evaluation of a witness’s testimony, which can be reasonably performed in one’s mind or with the aid of pencil and paper)
determine, based on an input content of the appearance features, a question to inquire the witness about the tracking target person, (Mental process of evaluation and judgment of a witness’s testimony, and forming questions related to appearance features for clarification can be reasonably performed in one’s mind or with the aid of pencil and paper)
output the question, (Mental process performed in one’s mind or with the aid of pencil and paper)
receive an answer to the question, (Mental process of observation evaluation of a witness’s answer, which can be reasonably performed in one’s mind or with the aid of pencil and paper)
generate a search query for searching for the tracking target person in an image based on the answer to the question, (Mental process performed in one’s mind or with the aid of pencil and paper)
Claim(s) 2, 10 and 16 recites the following limitations:
generate the search query based on the input content of the appearance features and the answer to the question, (Mental process performed in one’s mind or with the aid of pencil and paper)
Claim(s) 3, 11 and 17 recites the following limitations:
specify the item of which the appearance feature has been input, and determines determine the question based on the specified item. (Mental process of observation, evaluation and judgement, which can be reasonably performed in one’s mind or with the aid of pencil and paper)
Claim(s) 4, 12 and 18 recites the following limitations:
extract the item correlated with the specified item or the item not correlated with the specified item based on correlation information indicating a correlation between the plurality of the items, and determines the question for inquiring the appearance feature of the extracted item about the tracking target person. (Mental process of observation, evaluation and judgement, which can be reasonably performed in one’s mind or with the aid of pencil and paper)
Claim(s) 5, 13 and 19 recites the following limitations:
correlation information indicates that a plurality of the items in which parts of a human body where the appearance features appear have a predetermined relationship with each other are correlated with each other (Mental process of observation, evaluation and judgement, which can be reasonably performed in one’s mind or with the aid of pencil and paper)
Claim(s) 6, 13 and 19 recites the following limitations:
correlation information indicates that a plurality of the items of which features match are correlated with each other (Mental process of observation, evaluation and judgement, which can be reasonably performed in one’s mind or with the aid of pencil and paper)
Claim(s) 7, 14 and 20 recites the following limitations:
wherein the correlation information indicates that a plurality of the items that are input as a set in the past input have a correlation with each other (Mental process of observation, evaluation and judgement, which can be reasonably performed in one’s mind or with the aid of pencil and paper)
Claim(s) 8 recites the following limitations:
determine the question based on a search result of the tracking target person in the image based on the appearance feature of which the input is received. (Mental process of observation, evaluation and judgement, which can be reasonably performed in one’s mind or with the aid of pencil and paper)
Accordingly, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the highlighted limitation(s) in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “processing apparatus,” “memory,” “processor,” “computers ,” “non-transitory computer-readable medium,” nothing in the claim element(s) precludes the step(s) from practically being performed in the human mind using observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion. As such, the claim(s) falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Therefore, the claim(s) recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong 2: The judicial exception(s) are not integrated into a practical application. The claim(s) recites the following additional elements:
Claim(s) 1-8, recites: processing apparatus, memory, processor; Claim(s) 9-14, recites: processing method causing one or more computers to execute; Claim(s) 15-20 recites: non-transitory computer-readable medium storing a program that causes a computer… , all of which are recited at high level of generality and amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer)
Claims 1, 9 and 15 further recites receiving and input and outputting the question ("receiving" and "outputting" are mere data gathering and output recited at a high level of generality as identified in MPEP 2106.05(g), and thus are insignificant extra-solution activity).
Accordingly, these additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, the claim(s) are directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B: The claim(s) does not include additional element(s) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element(s) amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer and thus are mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component-see MPEP 2106.05(f). Also, the additional element(s) amounts to no more than mere data gathering and output recited at a high level of generality and thus are insignificant extra-solution activity - see MPEP 2106.05(g). (see MPEP 2106.05(g). Specifically, Electric Power Group: selecting/analyzing information and displaying results (data gathering/output))
Therefore, the additional element(s) are not indicative of an inventive concept (aka “significantly more”). The claim(s) are not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
Claim(s) 1-7, 9-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mori et al. (US 20210064885 A1) in view of Romano (US 12302207 B1).
As per claim 1, Mori teaches:
a processing apparatus comprising: at least one memory configured to store one or more instructions; and at least one processor, at least by (paragraph [0028-0051] and Fig. 1, which describes the entire system with memory and processors)
configured to execute the one or more instructions to: receive an input of appearance features of a plurality of items about a tracking target person based on a witness's statement at least by (paragraph [0037] “(eyewitness information) with respect to an incident”, paragraph [0076] “search screen WD1 shown in FIG. 4 has an input field CON1 for various search conditions regarding an object (for example, a person)”, paragraph [0087] selecting person characteristic elements (an example of an object feature element) for characterizing a person such as a suspect.)
determine, based on an input content of the appearance features, a question to inquire the witness about the tracking target person, at least by (paragraph [0087] “Upon detecting that the People icon OB1 has been pressed by the operation of the operator, the investigation assist application displays a person detail screen WD2 on the display device 116 (see FIG. 4). The person detail screen WD2 prompts the operator to select person characteristic elements (an example of an object feature element) for characterizing a person such as a suspect. The person characteristic elements are, specifically, Gender, Hair Style, clothes of Upper Body, clothes of Lower Body, Bag, Accessory), and the colors thereof. In FIG. 4, a different color palette CLP1 is provided for each of the hairstyle, clothes of upper body, and clothes of lower body.”
output the question, at least by (paragraph [0087] “assist application displays a person detail screen WD2 on the display device 116 (see FIG. 4). The person detail screen WD2 prompts the operator to select person characteristic elements (an example of an object feature element) for characterizing a person such as a suspect… FIG. 4, a different color palette CLP1 is provided for each of the hairstyle, clothes of upper body, and clothes of lower body.”)
receive an answer to the question, at least by (paragraph [0087] “at least one person characteristic element selected by the operation of the operator”
generate a search query for searching for the tracking target person in an image based on the answer to the question, at least by (paragraph [0087-0088] “investigation assist application sets at least one person characteristic element selected by the operation of the operator as a person search condition CH1. For example, in the person search condition CH1 in FIG. 4, the object feature elements “male”, “wearing yellow long-sleeved clothes for upper body”, “wearing black pants for lower body”, “no bag”, and “no accessories” are selected…. search icon SC1 is pressed by the operation of the operator when a search using the set person search condition CH1 is started.”)
As shown above, Mori provides an interface where appearance features are provided as selectable options, and difference color palette/options (Fig. 4 CLP1) about for each feature (hairstyle, clothes of upper body, and clothes of lower body) can be selected. As such the color palette/options can be interpreted as a “question” about each input feature. However, such CLP1 options are not describes specifically as questions and they appear to be predetermined selectable options not determined based on the input/selection.
However, Romano describes in (col. 14 lines 37-col. 15 lines 7, that the system selects/generates follow-up questions based on the student report (e.g. input) for further investigation for parameters, the follow up question prompt is sent to the user device or as the information is being entered to be answered)
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Mori’s witness input interface for selectable appearance features with the follow-up question selection of Romano, so that when the witness provides an incomplete appearance selection such as “short hair” or “hat”, etc., the system has the ability to ask corresponding clarifying question for further investigation for parameters, such as hair color, hat color, or hat type, etc. before generating the persons-search condition, which provides “more clarifying assertion(s)” (Romano, col. 14 line 50).
As per claim 2, claim 1 is incorporated and Mori further discloses:
wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the one or more instructions to generate the search query based on the input content of the appearance features and the answer to the question, at least by (paragraph [0087] “investigation assist application sets at least one person characteristic element selected by the operation of the operator as a person search condition CH1. For example, in the person search condition CH1 in FIG. 4, the object feature elements “male”, “wearing yellow long-sleeved clothes for upper body”, “wearing black pants for lower body”, “no bag”, and “no accessories” are selected”)
Romano further describes in (col. 14 lines 42-47) generating follow-up questions based on student report to obtain clarifying assertion/answers to generate an additional report)
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Mori’s witness input interface for selectable appearance features and using the selected features as it person search condition(s) with the follow-up question selection and obtaining clarifying assertion/answers to generate an additional report of Romano, so that person search condition further includes the answers to the follow-up questions.
As per claim 3, claim 1 is incorporated and Mori further discloses:
wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the one or more instructions to specify the item of which the appearance feature has been input, at least by (paragraph [0087] where here the user selecting People, Gender, Hair Style, clothes of Upper Body, clothes of Lower Body, Bag, Accessory” are specify the item of which the appearance feature has been input)
and determine the question based on the specified item, at least by (paragraph [0087] “FIG. 4, a different color palette CLP1 is provided for each of the hairstyle, clothes of upper body, and clothes of lower body.”)
As shown above, Mori provides an interface where appearance features are provided as selectable options, and difference color palette/options (Fig. 4 CLP1) about for each feature (hairstyle, clothes of upper body, and clothes of lower body) can be selected. As such the color palette/options can be interpreted as a “question” about each input feature. However, such CLP1 options are not describes specifically as questions and they appear to be predetermined selectable options not determined based on the input/selection.
However, Romano describes in (col. 14 lines 37-col. 15 lines 7, that the system selects/generates follow-up questions based on the student report (e.g. input) for further investigation for parameters, the follow up question prompt is sent to the user device or as the information is being entered to be answered)
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Mori’s witness input interface for selectable appearance features with the follow-up question selection of Romano, so that when the witness provides an incomplete appearance selection such as “short hair” or “hat”, etc., the system has the ability to ask corresponding clarifying question for further investigation for parameters, such as hair color, hat color, or hat type, etc. before generating the persons-search condition, which provides “more clarifying assertion(s)” (Romano, col. 14 line 50).
As per claim 4, claim 3 is incorporated and Mori further discloses:
wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the one or more instructions to extract the item correlated with the specified item or the item not correlated with the specified item based on correlation information indicating a correlation between the plurality of the items, and determine the question for inquiring the appearance feature of the extracted item about the tracking target person, at least by (paragraph [0087] “FIG. 4, a different color palette CLP1 is provided for each of the hairstyle, clothes of upper body, and clothes of lower body.” Which describes options/question for selecting appearance feature of the extracted item about the tracking target person. But Mori fails to specifically describe extract the item correlated with the specified item or the item not correlated with the specified item based on correlation information indicating a correlation between the plurality of the items, and determine the question…)
However, Romano describes the above limitation at least by (col. 14 lines 37-col. 15 lines 7, “system chooses which interrogatory questions to select based on its analysis of case reports in other matters, the assessment of what questions were dispositive in those matters… using the system's adaptive learning tools” which teaches question items correlated with the specified item; “ the system may recognize sobriety issues based on GPS and other data…and may ask the student about alcohol consumption if the student didn't identify any alcohol consumption in their original report” which teaches items not correlated with the specified item, as the system identified that alcohol consumption was not reported (an uncorrelated/missing item), infer from other data that it is relevant and asks about it (e.g. determined question))
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Mori’s witness input interface for selectable appearance features with the follow-up question selection of Romano, so that when the witness provides an incomplete appearance selection such as “short hair” or “hat”, etc., the system has the ability to ask corresponding clarifying question for further investigation for parameters, such as hair color, hat color, or hat type, etc. before generating the persons-search condition, which provides “more clarifying assertion(s)” (Romano, col. 14 line 50).
As per claim 5, claim 4 is incorporated and Mori further discloses:
wherein the correlation information indicates that a plurality of the items in which parts of a human body where the appearance features appear have a predetermined relationship with each other are correlated with each other, at least by (paragraph [0087] describes the appearance features such as Hair Style, clothes of Upper Body, clothes of Lower Body, Bag, Accessory… FIG. 4, a different color palette CLP1 is provided for each of the hairstyle, clothes of upper body, and clothes of lower body.” Where matching features related to each category is grouped/correlated with each other for example: hair style feature:{short, long, no hair}{color}, clothes of Upper Body feature: {long sleave, short sleave, tank top}{color}, closes of lower body feature: {long pants, shorts, skirt}{color} etc.)
As per claim 6, claim 4 is incorporated and Mori further discloses:
wherein the correlation information indicates that a plurality of the items of which features match are correlated with each other, at least by (paragraph [0087] describes the appearance features such as Hair Style, clothes of Upper Body, clothes of Lower Body, Bag, Accessory… FIG. 4, a different color palette CLP1 is provided for each of the hairstyle, clothes of upper body, and clothes of lower body.” Where matching features related to each category is grouped/correlated with each other for example: gender feature: {male, female}, hair feature:{short, long, no hair}{color}, clothes of Upper Body feature: {long sleave, short sleave, tank top}{color}, closes of lower body feature: {long pants, shorts, skirt}{color} etc.)
As per claim 7, claim 4 is incorporated and Mori fails to disclose:
wherein the correlation information indicates that a plurality of the items that are input as a set in the past input have a correlation with each other,
However, Romano describes the above limitation at least by (col. 14 lines 37-col. 15 lines 7, “system chooses which interrogatory questions to select based on its analysis of case reports in other matters, the assessment of what questions were dispositive in those matters, which generated additional relevant evidence… using the system's adaptive learning tools” where case report in other matters is past inputs, and the system analyzes whit items appeared together (input as a set) across prior cases and uses the co-occurrence to determine which questions to ask)
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Mori’s witness input interface for selectable appearance features with the follow-up question selection of Romano, so that when the witness provides an incomplete appearance selection such as “short hair” or “hat”, etc., the system has the ability to ask corresponding clarifying question for further investigation for parameters, such as hair color, hat color, or hat type, etc. before generating the persons-search condition, which provides “more clarifying assertion(s)” (Romano, col. 14 line 50).
Claims 9-14 recite equivalent claim limitations as claims 1-6 above, except that they set forth the claimed invention as a method; Claims 15-20 recite equivalent claim limitations as claims 1-6 above, except that they set forth the claimed invention as a non-transitory computer-readable medium, as such they are rejected for the same reasons as applied hereinabove.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mori and Romano further in view of Watanabe et al. (US 20200065324 A1).
As per claim 8, claim 1 is incorporated and Mori fails to disclose:
wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the one or more instructions to determine the question based on a search result of the tracking target person in the image based on the appearance feature of which the input is received.
However, Watanabe describes the above limitation at least by (Claim 1 “a relevance estimation unit that estimates relevance between a plurality of images selected by a predetermined operation among images hit by a search; a query correction unit that generates a second query based on the relevance between the plurality of images)
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Mori’s witness input interface for selectable appearance features and the follow-up question selection of Romano with Watanabe’s ability to determine the follow-up question based on the relevance of the results from the initial questions, to present relevant attributes effective for searching (Watanabe, para. 0114).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Igarashi et al. (US 8484190 B1): Abstract, col. 4 lines 13-19, “queries that can be clarified with additional user input. For example, the collection of trigger queries can include common queries that can be clarified with additional information qualifying the query. Thus, each trigger query is identified as having missing information that would provide more relevant search results than the trigger query submitted alone. The system prompts the user to provide that missing information.”
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DENNIS TRUONG whose telephone number is (571)270-3157. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30 am - 5:30 pm 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, Amy Ng can be reached at (571) 270-1698. 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.
/DENNIS TRUONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2164 06/26/2026
Prosecution Insights