DETAILED ACTION
Remarks
The instant application having Application Number 19/477,178 filed on October 21, 2025 has a total of 6 claims pending in the application; there are 3 independent claims and 3 dependent claims, all of which are presented for examination by the examiner.
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 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.
Examiner Notes
Examiner cites particular columns and line numbers in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the applicant fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
The examiner requests, in response to this Office action, supports are shown for language added to any original claims on amendment and any new claims. That is, indicate support for newly added claim language by specifically pointing to page(s) and line no(s) in the specification and/or drawing figure(s). This will assist the examiner in prosecuting the application.
When responding to this office action, Applicant is advised to clearly point out the patentable novelty which he or she thinks the claims present, in view of the state of the art disclosed by the references cited or the objections made. He or she must also show how the amendments avoid such references or objections See 37 CFR 1.111(c).
Information Disclosure Statement
As required by M.P.E.P. 609(C), the applicant’s submissions of the Information Disclosure Statements dated October 21, 2025 is acknowledged by the examiner and the cited references have been considered in the examination of the claims now pending. As required by M.P.E.P 609 C (2), a copy of the PTOL-1449 initialed and dated by the examiner is attached to the instant office action.
Drawings
The applicant’s drawings submitted are acceptable for examination purposes.
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 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 1 recites “A device …”; therefore, the claim is a machine.
Claim 5 recites “A method…”, the claim recites a series of steps and therefore is process.
Claim 6 recites “A computer-readable recording medium”, therefore the claim is a manufacture.
The claims, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, recites limitations directed to an abstract idea, including mathematical concepts - mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations. In particular, the following limitations are directed to an abstract idea:
a memory configured to store instructions; and
one or more processors configured to execute the instructions to:
update a parameter that defines a frequency distribution of one or a plurality of indexes relating to an object indicated by target data;
calculate reliability of each of the indexes, using the parameter; and
collate the object, based on the reliability.
The claim limitations above, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of "mathematical relationships/formulas". As "mathematical relationships/formulas" is used to describe mathematical concepts such as mathematical algorithms, mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas, and calculations.
That is, other than reciting “memory”, “processor” and “computer-readable storage medium” nothing in the claim element precludes the steps from practically being performed as mathematical relationships, formulas and calculations. For example, update a parameter that defines a frequency distribution of one or a plurality of indexes relating to an object indicated by target data; calculate reliability of each of the indexes, using the parameter; and collate the object, based on the reliability, in the context of this claim encompasses the user processing mathematical relationships, formulas and calculations as described in the specification paragraph [0022-0024], [0062-0069] and Figs. 3-4. Similarly, the limitation “update a parameter that defines a frequency distribution of one or a plurality of indexes relating to an object indicated by target data; calculate reliability of each of the indexes, using the parameter; and collate the object, based on the reliability”, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation as mathematical relationships, formulas and calculations but for the recitation of generic computer components. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation as mathematical relationships, formulas and calculations but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites one additional element – using memory, processor to perform frequency distribution, calculate reliability and collate the object, based on the reliability steps. The memory, processor in all steps is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function of frequency distribution, calculate reliability and collate the object, based on the reliability) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this 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. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
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 frequency distribution, calculate reliability and collate the object, based on the reliability steps 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. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Independent claims 5 and 6 have the similar limitations as claim 1 and are rejected for at least the same reasons as claim 1.
Regarding claim 2. The collation device according to claim 1, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to execute the instructions to: remove the reliability of at least one index among the plurality of indexes to collate the object; and update a parameter that defines the frequency distribution of the removed at least one index.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, this additional limitation 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.
Regarding claim 3. The collation device according to claim 2, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to execute the instructions to: calculate a degree indicating strength of association between a past frequency distribution and a current frequency distribution for the removed at least one index; and in a case where the degree is smaller than a threshold value, update the parameter from a parameter defining the past frequency distribution to a parameter defining the current frequency distribution.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, this additional limitation 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.
Regarding claim 4. The collation device according to claim 2 wherein the one or more processors are further configured to execute the instructions to: generate initial information that is a past frequency distribution, from past target data; and update the parameter from a parameter defining the initial information to a parameter defining a current frequency distribution.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, this additional limitation 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 of this title, 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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 5 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakamoto Hisashi (Japanese Patent Publication No. JP2019016098A, ‘Nakamoto’, hereinafter, provided by IDS) in view of Wada Akira (Japanese Patent Publication No. JP2017194787A, ‘Wada’, hereafter, provided by IDS).
Regarding claim 1. Nakamoto teaches a collation device comprising:
a memory configured to store instructions; and one or more processors configured to execute the instructions (the program can be realized by supplying the program to a system or a device via a network or a storage medium, and one or more processors in a computer (or CPU, MPU, etc.) of the system or apparatus reading and executing the program is there. In addition, the program may be recorded in a computer-readable recording medium and provided. In addition, the present invention is not limited to the one in which the functions of the embodiments are realized by executing the program read by the computer. For example, an operating system (OS) or the like running on a computer may perform a part or all of actual processing based on an instruction of a program, and the functions of the embodiments described above may be realized by the processing, Nakamoto, page 14, lines 2-10) to:
calculate reliability of each of the indexes, using the parameter; and collate the object, based on the reliability (The reliability calculation unit 310 calculates the reliability for each of the feature quantities managed by the feature quantity management unit 309. In the present embodiment, "reliability" is a numerical value indicating the probability of successful identification of the person in the process of identifying a person by the feature quantity updated by the feature quantity updating unit 308. In other words, it is a numerical value representing the accuracy of successful identification of a person, and indicates that the greater the value, the higher the success probability of identification. For example, with respect to the clothing feature amount, the clothing of a person is judged by color matching of colors, and as the luminance accuracy of the extracted color is higher, the reliability is calculated higher. The person identifying unit 312 identifies a person by comparing the feature amount of the person detected by the person detection and tracking unit 302 with the feature amount of the person to be tracked (retrieved). In the present embodiment, the person identifying unit 312 identifies a plurality of feature amounts of a person, that is, a face feature amount, a costume feature amount, a gait feature amount, and a body feature amount as a plurality of feature quantities of a person to be searched by matching, the collation result is outputted to the display device 26 via the output unit, Nakamoto, page 6, line 50 – page 7, line 18).
Nakamoto does not teach
update a parameter that defines a frequency distribution of one or a plurality of indexes relating to an object indicated by target data;
However, Wada teaches
update a parameter that defines a frequency distribution of one or a plurality of indexes relating to an object indicated by target data (A certain uncertain object is tracked a plurality of times consecutively by the tracking process of the unconfirmed object tracking section 157 b and the number of times of the tracking process becomes the number of times of tracking (for example, 5 times) according to the preset parameter value, … When at least one standard deviation among the standard deviations of the region width, the region height, and the moving speed generated based on the information of the undetermined object is larger than the allowable standard deviation (s) set by the parameter, As the variation of the appearance region is large, the tracking of this indeterminate object is ended. The unnecessary object is deleted by the unnecessary object removing unit, Wada, page 10, lines 16-34);
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made having the teachings of Nakamoto and Wada before him/her, to modify Nakamoto with the teaching of Wada’s image processing apparatus and area tracking program. One would have been motivated to do so for the benefit of providing an image processing apparatus and an area tracking program which solve the above-described troublesome events in an economically advantageous configuration without causing a large increase in processing load and further improve the tracking performance (Wada, Abstract, page 2, lines 38-40).
Regarding claim 5, although claim 5 directed to a method, it is similar in scope to claim 1. The device steps of claim 1 substantially encompass the method recited in claim 5. Therefore; claim 5 is rejected for at least the same reason as claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 6. Nakamoto teaches a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium storing a program for causing a computer to perform a method (the program can be realized by supplying the program to a system or a device via a network or a storage medium, and one or more processors in a computer (or CPU, MPU, etc.) of the system or apparatus reading and executing the program is there. In addition, the program may be recorded in a computer-readable recording medium and provided. In addition, the present invention is not limited to the one in which the functions of the embodiments are realized by executing the program read by the computer. For example, an operating system (OS) or the like running on a computer may perform a part or all of actual processing based on an instruction of a program, and the functions of the embodiments described above may be realized by the processing, Nakamoto, page 14, lines 2-10), the method comprising:
although claim 6 directed to a medium, it is similar in scope to claim 1. The device steps of claim 1 substantially encompass the medium recited in claim 6. Therefore; claim 6 is rejected for at least the same reason as claim 1 above.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 2 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims and overcome any objection and/or any rejection of the claims.
With respect to claims 3-4 this claim would be allowable by the virtue of their dependency on objected claim 2 respectively.
If the Applicant agreed to the allowable subject matter, Examiner respectfully request the Applicant to make the similar modification to the other independent claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record, listed on form PTO-892, and not relied upon, if any, is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
Oami et al. (US Patent Publication No. 2015/0254514 A1) discloses efficiency search for an object associated with a sensed event, an information processing apparatus includes a sensor that analyzes a captured video and senses whether a predetermined event has occurred, a determining unit that determines a type of an object to be used as query information based on a type of the event in response to sensing of the event occurrence, and a generator that detects the object of the determined type from the video and generates the query information based on the detected object.
Ogawa et al. (WIPO Patent Publication No. WO 2023148964 A1) discloses a a general-purpose comparison technology which improves reproducibility while maintaining comparison accuracy, this comparison device (20) is equipped with: a first reliability calculation means (21) for calculating a first reliability for each of a plurality of indicators pertaining to an object represented by target data; a second reliability calculation means (22) for calculating a plurality of second reliabilities from the plurality of first reliabilities; and a comparison means (23) for comparing the object on the basis of the plurality of second reliabilities.
Hosomi et al. (US Patent Publication No. 2015/0278722 A1) discloses an event processing device capable of eliminating an inconsistency between events in sequential processing in complex event processing of taking input events acquired from many origination sources. The event processing device 50 includes the event data storage means 51 for storing a set of event data mutually associated under a predetermined condition until a predetermined holding deadline, the event evaluation means 52 for, when newly-input event data meets the predetermined condition, including the event data as new event data in the set, and the event competition elimination means 53 for, when new event data is competitive data in which a competition is caused in attribute values for a common attribute with other event data included in the set, excluding the competitive data from the set.
Okuyama et al. (US Patent No. 8,826,379 B2) discloses collation information (22) of data (21) is acquired via a high-secure network (3). The data (21) is acquired via a low-secure network (4). The acquired collation information (22) and data (21) are collated. If the collation result is "match", it is determined that the low-secure network (4) is not disguised, and access to the low-secure network (4) is permitted. The use of the downloaded data (21) on the high-secure network (3) and low-secure network (4) is permitted.
Oami et al. (WIPO Patent Publication No. WO 2018173838 A1) discloses generate an object feature quantity that reduces a tracking omission or a search omission caused by a collation error. An object feature quantity extraction device provided with: an object detection unit for detecting an object from an image and generating area information that indicates an area where the object is present and resolution information pertaining to the resolution of the object; and a feature quantity extraction unit for extracting, in consideration of the resolution information, a feature quantity that represents the features of the object from an image within the area defined by the area information.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HASANUL MOBIN whose telephone number is (571)270-1289. The examiner can normally be reached on 9AM to 6:00PM EST M-F.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Charles Rones can be reached at 571-272-4085. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/HASANUL MOBIN/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2168
Prosecution Insights