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 .
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.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 11/10/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “images within the setting areas” must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s) (claim 1). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 8 recites “line of site”. It appears the language should be “line of sight”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 recites “images within the setting areas”. Although para [0006] and [0022] recites this exact limitation, this is a mere copy of the claim language, and the specification does not provide any clear working embodiment, nor example, of images within the setting areas. The specification does describe subjects in an image, and codes in the setting areas, however since the claim already recites “subjects in an image”, it appears that the “images within the setting areas” is different than the subjects. Thus the specification does not provide a clear working embodiment where there are images within the setting areas. As such, for examination purposes, the “images within the setting areas” will be interpreted as the subjects in the setting areas, especially since claim 2 recites “the second information is images of the setting areas”.
Claims not specifically addressed fail to comply with the written description requirement due to their dependency.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites “setting areas including subjects in an image” and “images within the setting areas”. It is not clear from “setting areas including subjects in an image” if an image is in the setting areas or if the setting areas is in an image. Additionally, it is not clear if the images within the setting areas are the same as, or different than, the subjects in an image, or the image of the setting areas. Please clarify. It is not clear how images within the setting area relates to the subjects in an image of the setting areas, if at all. Please clarify.
Claim 2 recites “the second information is images of the setting areas”. However, claim 1 recites “the second information corresponds to images within the setting areas”. It is noted that “images of the setting areas” and “images within the setting areas” are not the same. As such, it is not clear if the applicant intended the claim language to be “the second information is images within the setting areas”, as implied in claim 1. Please clarify. If the applicant intended different things, then it is not clear how the images within the setting area relates to the images of the setting area. Does the applicant mean there are different images? Please clarify. The claim language needs to better differentiate the different images.
Claim 4 recites “to detect subject areas that are areas that include subjects in the image”. However, claim 1 already recites “setting areas including subjects in the image”. It is not clear if “subjects in the image” are the same as, or different than that in claim 1. Please clarify. If the same, then proper antecedent basis is needed, e.g. “the subjects in the image”. Further, it is not clear if the subject areas are the same as, or different than, the setting areas, since both include subjects in the image. Or does the applicant mean that the subject areas are a subset of the setting areas? Please clarify. If the applicant is intending to define how the setting areas are set, then the claim language should better clarify the defining, e.g. “wherein setting the setting areas include detecting subject areas that are areas that include the subjects in the image”.
Claim 5 recites “acquire a position that has been designated by a user in the image”. It is not clear what the position is with respect to. More specifically, a position of what? Does the applicant intend it to be a position of the subjects? Please clarify.
Claim 15 recites “machine learning-type”. This term is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “type” with respect to “machine learning-type” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is not clear what “type” means in that it appears that there would be machine learning, or no machine learning. It is not clear what a machine learning-type encompasses. Please clarify.
Claims not specifically addressed are indefinite due to their dependency.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 4, 11 and 15-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Yamasaki et al. (US 2022/0129655).
With respect to claim 1, as best understood, Yamasaki et al. discloses an information processing apparatus comprising:
at least one memory storing instructions ([0046]-[0048]); and
at least one processor executing the stored instructions causing the information processing apparatus ([0046]-[0048]):
to set setting areas (103, 107) including subjects (101, 105) in an image (F) ([0064], Fig. 5);
to detect codes (102, 106) that have been allocated to the subjects (objects/products) ([0064]-[0066], Fig. 5);
to acquire first information (code associated information) corresponding to the codes ([0058]-[0068], [0073], Fig. 4);
to acquire second information (object associated information) corresponding to images (objects) within the setting areas ([0050]-[0052], [0065]-[0068], [0072], Fig. 3);
to perform correspondence of the codes and the setting areas by comparing the first information and the second information ([0063], [0066]-[0068], Figs. 3, 4 and 6); and
to output at least one of the first information and the second information based on the results of the correspondence ([0061]-[0063], [0066]-[0070], [0115], [0116], Figs. 3, 4 and 6).
With respect to claim 3, Yamasaki et al. discloses the codes are one or more from among two dimensional information that can be read using visible light, two dimensional information that can be read using non-visible light, three dimensional information that can be read using visible light, three dimensional information that can be read using non-visible light, and a tag that emits electromagnetic waves ([0048], [0058], [0107], [0108], [0119])).
With respect to claim 4, as best understood, Yamasaki et al. discloses executing the stored instructions further causes the information processing apparatus: to detect subject areas that are areas that include subjects in the image; and to set the subject areas that have been detected as the setting areas ([0050], [0051], [0064], [0065].
With respect to claim 11, Yamasaki et al. discloses executing the stored instructions by the processor further causes the information processing apparatus to acquire at least one of appearance information for the subjects, and shape information for the subjects as the first information ([0051], [0054], [0056], [0072]).
With respect to claim 15, Yamasaki et al. discloses executing the stored instructions by the processor further causes the information processing apparatus to perform machine learning image recognition, wherein the image recognition is performed by performing learning with a machine learning model by making the image and the first information inputs ([0054]).
With respect to claims 16 and 17, Yamasaki et al. discloses an information processing method executed by an information processing apparatus, the method comprising:
setting setting areas (103, 107) including subjects (101, 105) in an image (F) ([0064], Fig. 5);
detecting codes (102, 106) that have been allocated to the subjects (objects/products) ([0064]-[0066], Fig. 5);
acquiring first information (code associated information) corresponding to the codes ([0058]-[0068], [0073], Fig. 4);
acquiring second information (object associated information) corresponding to image information (object associated information) within the setting areas ([0050]-[0052], [0065]-[0068], [0072], Fig. 3);
performing correspondence of the codes and the setting areas by comparing the first information and the second information ([0063], [0066]-[0068], Figs. 3, 4 and 6); and;
outputting at least one of the first information and the second information based on the results of the correspondence ([0061]-[0063], [0066]-[0070], [0115], [0116], Figs. 3, 4 and 6).
Yamasaki et al. further discloses a non-transitory medium storing a program of an information processing apparatus to perform the method above ([0046]-[0048]).
Examiner’s Remarks
With respect to claim(s) 2, 5-10 and 12-14, the examiner makes no prior art rejection. However, these claims are not allowable pursuant to the 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, rejection and 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, rejection.
Telephone/Fax Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SUEZU ELLIS whose telephone number is (571)272-2868. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 10:30 am - 6:30 pm EST.
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, Thomas Pham can be reached at (571) 272-3689. 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.
/SUEZU ELLIS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2876
Prosecution Insights