CTNF 19/157,750 CTNF 83274 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. The instant application having Application No. 19/157,750 filed on 8/19/2025 is presented for examination by the Examiner. Claims 1-20 are currently pending in the present application. Priority Acknowledgment is made of this application is a 371 of PCT/JP2024/003234 filed on 2/1/2024. 02-27 AIA Acknowledgment is made of Applicant's claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. JAPAN JP2023-052965 , filed on 3/29/2023 . Drawings The Applicant's drawings filed on 8/19/2025 are acceptable for examination purpose. Information Disclosure Statement As required by M.P.E.P. 609, the Applicant's submission of the Information Disclosure Statement dated 8/19/2025 is acknowledged by the Examiner and the cited references have been considered in the examination of the claims now pending. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 07-04-01 AIA 07-04 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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. As per claim 1 , the claim recites “ A processing apparatus comprising: at least one memory configured to store one or more instructions; and at least one processor configured to execute the one or more instructions to: acquire witness information indicating content of a witness's statement; specify appearance features of a plurality of items about a tracking target person based on the witness information; determine reliability of each of the specified appearance features based on the witness information; and generate a search query used in a case of searching for the tracking target person in an image based on the specified appearance features and the reliability of each of the specified appearance features ”. Step 1: Statutory Category Claim 1 discloses an apparatus which is a machine within the meaning of the section. Step 2A - Prong One: Judicial Exception Recited The claim recites the limitations “ specify ” and “ determine ” which specifically recite “ specify appearance features of a plurality of items about a tracking target person based on the witness information ” and “ determine reliability of each of the specified appearance features based on the witness information ”. These limitations are processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitation in the mind, but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “ a processor ”, nothing in the claim element precludes the steps from practically being performed in a human mind or with the aid of pen or paper. For example, “specify” and “determine” in the context of this claim encompass a user mentally, and with the aid of pen and paper looking at information and/or characteristics of data and examining to identify or/and determine the desired or relevant data. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. Step 2A - Prong Two: Integrated into a Practical Application The claim recites the additional elements “ acquire witness information indicating content of a witness's statement ” and “ generate a search query used in a case of searching for the tracking target person in an image based on the specified appearance features and the reliability of each of the specified appearance features ”. The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the additional steps: the “acquire” and “generate” steps mount to data gathering which is considered to be insignificant extra-solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, thus fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(g). Step 2B: Claim provides an Inventive Concept The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The insignificant extra-solution activities identified above, which include the data-gathering and the step of “ generate ” is recognized by the courts as well-understood, routine, and conventional activities when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)). For these reasons, there is no inventive concept in the claim, and thus it is ineligible. The claim does not include additional elements 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 of using a processor to perform the “ generate ” step amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim as a whole, does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. This is because the claim does not affect an improvement to the functioning of a computer itself; and the claim does not move beyond a general link of the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Accordingly, claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea. As per claim 2 , the claim recites “ The processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the one or more instructions to generate the search query including the appearance feature of which reliability is equal to or more than a threshold and not including the appearance feature of which reliability is below the threshold” . The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, this additional limitation amounts to a data gathering which is considered to be insignificant extra solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(g)), and does not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception. As per claim 3 , the claim recites “ The processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the one or more instructions to generate the search query including the appearance features that are specified based on the witness information and the appearance features that are not specified based on the witness information but have a similar relationship with the appearance features of which reliability is below the threshold ”. The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, this additional limitation amounts to a data gathering which is considered to be insignificant extra solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(g)), and does not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception. As per claim 4 , the claim recites “ The processing apparatus according to claim 2, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the one or more instructions to generate the search query including the appearance feature that has a similar relationship with the appearance feature stated in a predetermined expression ”. The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, this additional limitation amounts to a data gathering which is considered to be insignificant extra solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(g)), and does not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception. As per claim 5 , the claim recites “ The processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the witness information includes text data indicating conversation content during the witness's statement, ”, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, this additional limitation amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply an exception to perform an existing process on a generic computer (MPEP 2106.05(f)). Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer do not amount to significantly more. “ the at least one processor is further configured to execute the one or more instructions to ”, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. “ extract a keyword related to the item and the appearance feature from the text data, ”, this additional limitation amounts to a data gathering which is considered to be insignificant extra solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(g)), and does not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception. “ specify the appearance features of the plurality of the items about the tracking target person based on an extraction result, specify an expression used during the statement of the appearance feature from the text data, and determine the reliability of the appearance feature based on a type of the expression ”, these additional limitations have been discussed above with respect to the abstract idea (i.e., “Mental Processes”) and do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception. As per claim 6 , the claim recites “ The processing apparatus according to claim 5, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the one or more instructions to set the reliability of the appearance feature in which an affirmative expression is used during the statement to be higher than the reliability of the appearance feature in which an ambiguous expression is used during the statement ”. The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, this additional limitation amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply an exception to perform an existing process on a generic computer (MPEP 2106.05(f)). Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer do not amount to significantly more. As per claim 7 , the claim recites “ The processing apparatus according to claim 1, ”, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. “ wherein the witness information includes voice data indicating conversation content during the witness's statement, and ”, this additional limitation amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply an exception to perform an existing process on a generic computer (MPEP 2106.05(f)). Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer do not amount to significantly more. “ the at least one processor is further configured to execute the one or more instructions to determine the reliability of the appearance feature based on the voice data during the statement of the appearance feature ”, this additional limitation has been discussed above with respect to the abstract idea (i.e., “Mental Processes”) and does not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception. As per claim 8 , the claim recites “ The processing apparatus according to claim 7, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the one or more instructions to determine the reliability of the appearance feature based on feature information of remarks including at least one of a feeling, a speaking tempo, and loudness of a voice of the witness during the statement of the appearance feature indicated by the voice data ”. The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, this additional limitation has been discussed above with respect to the abstract idea (i.e., “Mental Processes”) and does not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception. As per claim 9 , the claim recites “ The processing apparatus according to claim 8, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the one or more instructions to compare a plurality of the pieces of feature information of the remarks indicated by the voice data during the statement of each of a plurality of the appearance features stated by the witness with each other, and determine the reliability of the plurality of appearance features by relative evaluation ”. The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, these additional limitations have been discussed above with respect to the abstract idea (i.e., “Mental Processes”) and do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception. As per claim 10 , the claim recites “ The processing apparatus according to claim 8, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the one or more instructions to determine the reliability of the appearance features further using the feature information of remarks indicated by voice data in a period of time in which the witness does not state about the appearance feature ”. The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, this additional limitation has been discussed above with respect to the abstract idea (i.e., “Mental Processes”) and does not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception. As per claim 11 , the claim recites “ The processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the one or more instructions to ”, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. “ acquire witness feature information indicating features of the witness, and”, this additional limitation amounts to a data gathering which is considered to be insignificant extra solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). “ determine the reliability of the appearance features further using the witness feature information ”, this additional limitation has been discussed above with respect to the abstract idea (i.e., “Mental Processes”). The above limitations do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception. As per claim 12 , the claim recites “ The processing apparatus according to claim 11, wherein the witness feature information includes at least one of a date and time of the witness, weather during the witness, an attribute of the witness, an elapsed time from a time of the witness to a time of the testimony, a temporal length in which the witness observes a witness target, and a distance between the witness and the witness target ”. The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, this additional limitation amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply an exception to perform an existing process on a generic computer (MPEP 2106.05(f)). Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer do not amount to significantly more. As per claim 13 , the claim recites “ A processing method causing one or more computers to execute: ” the limitations similar to claim 1. Step 1: Statutory Category Claim 13 discloses a method which is a process within the meaning of the section. Step 2A – Prong One: Judicial Exception Recited The claim recites the limitations as same as claim 1, and therefore are interpreted as an abstract idea under the same premise as claim 1. Step 2A – Prong Two: Integrated into a Practical Application The claim recites additional elements as same as claim 1, and therefore are interpreted as an abstract idea under the same premise as claim 1. Step 2B: Claim provides an Inventive Concept The claim recites the limitations as same as claim 1, and therefore is considered under the same premise as claim 1 as no inventive concept in the claim, and thus it is ineligible. As per claims 14-16 , the claims are rejected under the same premises as the claims 2-4 respectively. As per claim 17 , the claim recites “ A non-transitory computer-readable medium storing a program that causes a computer to: ” execute the limitations similar to claim 1. Step 1: Statutory Category Claim 17 discloses a non-transitory computer-readable medium which is a manufacture within the meaning of the section. Step 2A – Prong One: Judicial Exception Recited The claim recites the limitations as same as claim 1, and therefore are interpreted as an abstract idea under the same premise as claim 1. Step 2A – Prong Two: Integrated into a Practical Application The claim recites additional elements as same as claim 1, and therefore are interpreted as an abstract idea under the same premise as claim 1. Step 2B: Claim provides an Inventive Concept The claim recites the limitations as same as claim 1, and therefore is considered under the same premise as claim 1 as no inventive concept in the claim, and thus it is ineligible. As per claims 18-20 , the claims are rejected under the same premises as the claims 2-4 respectively. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 1-20 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 as set forth in this Office action. Reasons for Allowance The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: After consideration of the prior arts in the submitted IDS and conducting different searches in PE2E - SEARCH, Similarity and More Like Doc Searches, Google Scholar, and ACM Digital Library, it appears that none of prior arts discloses, teaches or fairly suggests the limitations as a whole in the independent claims 1, 13 and 17. Conclusion 07-96 AIA The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. JP 2020178167 A by Arai et al. teaches when a server receives captured images sent from n numbers of monitoring cameras, the server analyzes feature information including the whole body and face of a person reflected in the captured images, and holds, as the analysis result, the whole body image obtained by cutting out the whole body of the person and the face image obtained by cutting out the face of the person. A client terminal sends, to the server, a request to execute matching processing of the whole body image of a target person and matching processing of the face image of the target person according to the designation of the whole body image and the face image of the target person. When the server identifies a person who matches at least one of the whole body image and the face image of the target person, the server sends, to the client terminal, an alarm notification in which the target person has been found. WO 2023026437 A1 by Kajiki teaches the occurrence of an abnormal situation can be detected and the abnormal situation can be appropriately ascertained. A monitoring device (1) comprises: a voice acquisition unit (2) that acquires prescribed speech spoken by a person due to the occurrence of an abnormal situation in a monitoring target area; a person identification unit (3) that identifies the person who spoke the prescribed speech, on the basis of a feature obtained from the prescribed speech; an analysis unit (4) that searches for the identified person in the images from a camera which images the monitoring target area, and that analyzes an expression or action of the person; and an abnormal situation evaluation unit (5) that evaluates the abnormal situation in the monitoring target area, on the basis of the analysis results. Contact Information Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Bai D. Vu whose telephone number is (571) 270-1751. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 - 5:30. 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, Tony Mahmoudi can be reached at (571) 272-4078. 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. /BAI D VU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2163 6/11/2026 Application/Control Number: 19/157,750 Page 2 Art Unit: 2163 Application/Control Number: 19/157,750 Page 3 Art Unit: 2163 Application/Control Number: 19/157,750 Page 4 Art Unit: 2163 Application/Control Number: 19/157,750 Page 5 Art Unit: 2163 Application/Control Number: 19/157,750 Page 6 Art Unit: 2163 Application/Control Number: 19/157,750 Page 7 Art Unit: 2163 Application/Control Number: 19/157,750 Page 8 Art Unit: 2163 Application/Control Number: 19/157,750 Page 9 Art Unit: 2163 Application/Control Number: 19/157,750 Page 10 Art Unit: 2163 Application/Control Number: 19/157,750 Page 11 Art Unit: 2163 Application/Control Number: 19/157,750 Page 12 Art Unit: 2163 Application/Control Number: 19/157,750 Page 13 Art Unit: 2163 Application/Control Number: 19/157,750 Page 14 Art Unit: 2163 Application/Control Number: 19/157,750 Page 15 Art Unit: 2163
Prosecution Insights