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 .
DETAILED ACTION
CONTINUED EXAMINATION UNDER 37 CFR. 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 02/27/2026 has been entered.
INFORMATION DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 2/12/2026 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
RESPONSE TO ARGUMENTS
35 USC 101 REJECTION
The examiner acknowledges the amendment of claims 1 & 19-20 and the cancellation of claim 9-16 filed 02/27/2026. After carefully reviewing applicant amendments, 35 USC 101 guidance and claim limitations, examiner respectfully disagrees.
Applicant Argument 1
Applicant submits the claims cannot recite mental process and cannot be performed in the human mind. After carefully reviewing applicant amendments, 35 USC 101 guidance and claim limitations, examiner respectfully disagrees.
In response, examiner submits even if a claim limitation involves physical components, the claim still recites limitations that can be characterized as observation, comparison and determination (e.g. acquiring collation images, collating them with a registration image and determining whether the represented object is the same object). MPEP Alice guidance discloses a claim may still recite a mental process type abstract idea when it includes comparison/evaluation steps, even if the claim is implemented on a processor. The critical inquiry is not whether the limitation can be performed in the human mind, but whether the claim recited a judicial exception when viewed as a whole under Step 2A Prong One.
Applicant Argument 2
Applicant submits claim amendments including a processor further configured to display a mark that represents rotation angles of the image capturing device at a position associated with rotation angles acquired by a gyro-sensor, and the position of the mark changes depending on a direction of the image capturing device and dynamically induces the rotation angles to be matched.
In response, examiner submits gyro sensor based display feature is using conventional device hardware to gather orientation information and present guidance to the user. Alice guidance discloses merely applying an abstract idea using a machine or within a particular technological environment is not enough to integrate the exception into a practical application.
Applicant Argument 3
Applicant submits posture matching can and will occur in an non-abstract matter and includes reference to a gyro sensor which further shows a technical application that is not abstract.
In response, examiner submits the claims as drafted do not recite a particular improvement to gyro-sensor technology, display technology or image capture hardware. Claimed components are used as tools to carry out the claimed posture guidance concept.
Applicant Argument 4
Applicant submits under Step 2A, prong 2, the claims are directed to a practical application because a real gyro sensor output to display an actual mark representing the rotation angles of the gyro sensor with matching the of the rotation angles occurring dynamically based on the position of the image capture device.
In response, examiner submits the claims as drafted do not recite a particular improvement to gyro-sensor technology, display technology or image capture hardware. Claimed components are used as tools to carry out the claimed posture guidance concept.
Applicant Argument 5
Applicant submits the claim discloses a real time, actual movement of a mark and a matching of rotating angles acquired by a gyro sensor based upon an actual orientation of a physical image capturing device, which is not abstract and is unique, practical, technical application of the abstract information analysis.
In response, examiner submits physical limitations alone do not remove a claim from abstraction. Federal circuit case law has held that claims involving imaging or camera related hardware can be still be abstract where the hardware is performing ordinary functions and the focus remain on information handling or analysis. Examiner submits the claims as drafted do not recite a particular improvement to gyro-sensor technology, display technology or image capture hardware. Claimed components are used as tools to carry out the claimed posture guidance concept.
Applicant Argument 6
Applicant submits claims include significantly additional elements of an image capturing device and a display that displays a mark that is representing rotation angles of such a device that were acquired by a gyro sensor that acquires such rotation angles (i.e. contain significantly more than a judicial exception).
In response, claim elements applicant refers to appear to be generic. Under USPTO 35 USC 101 Alice guidance, additional elements do not provide a practical application or “significantly more” when the elements merely gather data, display results or use generic hardware as a tool.
In view of examiners above arguments, rejection is deemed sufficient and is respectfully maintained.
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 1-8 & 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to as ineligible under subject eligibility test. In the Subject Matter Eligibility Test for Products and Processes (Federal Register, Vol. 79, No. 241, dated Tuesday, December 16, 2014, page 74621), The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional device elements, which are recited at a high level of generality, provide conventional computer functions that do not add meaningful limits to practicing the abstract idea.
Claims 1 & 19-20
Step 1
This step inquires “is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter?” Yes,
Claims 1 & 19 - “Apparatuses” or “Non-Transitory CRM” are machines.
Claim 20 – “Method” is a process.
Step 2A - Prong 1
This step inquires “does the claim recite an abstract idea, law or natural phenomenon”. This claim appears to directed to an abstract idea.
The limitation of “a processor configured to: perform a first function of assisting a user to perform a first operation of multiple operations on an image capturing device such that posture of the image capturing device that captures an image of an object with respect to the object is maintained in specific posture; and perform a second function of assisting in performing a second operation of the multiple operations subsequent to the first operation in a case where the first operation ends, wherein the image capturing device captures and acquires a plurality of collation images when the user performs the first operation or the second operation, and wherein the plurality of collation images and a registration image for identifying the object are collated after the image capturing device acquires the plurality of collation images and are used to determine whether an object represented in the collation image is the same as the object so as to allow for a posture of the image capturing device with respect to the object to be the same as the specific posture, and wherein the processor is further configured to display a mark that represents rotation angles of the image capturing device at a position associated with rotation angles acquired by a gyro-sensor, and the position of the mark changes depending on a direction of the image capturing device and dynamically induces the rotation angles to be matched.”, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind (e.g. mathematical concepts, mental processes or certain methods of organizing human activity) but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “a processors; image capturing device” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “a processors; image capturing device” language, “performing” in the context of this claim encompasses covers performance of the limitation in the mind (e.g. mathematical concepts, mental processes or certain methods of organizing human activity).
STEP 2A – PRONG 1 - CONCLUSION
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 2
This step inquires “does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application”. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites two additional element – using a “a processors; image capturing device” to perform “performing” steps. The “a processors; image capturing device” are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor) “a processor configured to: perform a first function of assisting a user to perform a first operation of multiple operations on an image capturing device such that posture of the image capturing device that captures an image of an object with respect to the object is maintained in specific posture; and perform a second function of assisting in performing a second operation of the multiple operations subsequent to the first operation in a case where the first operation ends, wherein the image capturing device captures and acquires a plurality of collation images when the user performs the first operation or the second operation, and wherein the plurality of collation images and a registration image for identifying the object are collated after the image capturing device acquires the plurality of collation images and are used to determine whether an object represented in the collation image is the same as the object so as to allow for a posture of the image capturing device with respect to the object to be the same as the specific posture, and wherein the processor is further configured to display a mark that represents rotation angles of the image capturing device at a position associated with rotation angles acquired by a gyro-sensor, and the position of the mark changes depending on a direction of the image capturing device and dynamically induces the rotation angles to be matched.” such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
STEP 2A – PRONG 2 - CONCLUSION
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.
Step 2B
The critical inquiry here is does the claim recite additional elements that amount to “significantly more” than the judicial exception? 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 “a processors; image capturing device” to perform “performing” 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. The claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent Claims
As to claim 2, this claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or constitute significantly more than the abstract.
As to claim 3, this claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or constitute significantly more than the abstract.
As to claim 4, this claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or constitute significantly more than the abstract.
As to claim 5, this claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or constitute significantly more than the abstract.
As to claim 6, this claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or constitute significantly more than the abstract.
As to claim 7, this claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or constitute significantly more than the abstract.
As to claim 8, this claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or constitute significantly more than the abstract.
As to claim 17, this claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or constitute significantly more than the abstract.
As to claim 18, this claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or constitute significantly more than the abstract.
CONCLUSION
No prior art has been found for claims 1-8 & 17-20 in their current form.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Stephen P Coleman whose telephone number is (571)270-5931. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8AM-5PM.
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, Andrew Moyer can be reached at (571) 272-9523. 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.
Stephen P. Coleman
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2675
/STEPHEN P COLEMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2675