DETAILED ACTION
This correspondence is responsive to the application and preliminary amendment filed on January 9, 2023. Claims 1-13 are pending in the case, with claims 1 and 11-13 in independent form.
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 .
Summary of Detailed Action
Claims 1-13 are objected to regarding informalities.
Claims 1-10,12-13 limitations invoke interpretation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claims 1-10, 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite
Claims 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Examiner note: If claims 1-13 are amended only to recite one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter, then claims 1-3, 5-8, 12-13 would be rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as directed to an abstract idea without significantly more, as shown below for example only.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-13 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 1-13: For all claims 1-13, remove the brackets around the claim number. For example, change “[Claim 1]” to “Claim 1”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
a processing section configured to, a digital signal processing section configured to, an output interface configured to, an input interface configured to, in claims 1-10.
a processing section configured to, a digital signal processing section configured to, an output interface configured to, an application processor configured to, in claim 12.
a processing section configured to, a digital signal processing section configured to, an output interface configured to, an input interface configured to, a converter configured to, in claim 13.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 1-10 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 “A solid-state imaging element.” It is not clear what a solid-state imaging element is or is not. For example, is a solid-state imaging element a particular solid-state imaging component of some type, a solid-state imaging process, a solid-state imaging system, solid-state imaging platform, solid-state imaging server, solid-state imaging camera? Or, is a solid-state imaging element something else entirely? The examiner reviewed the originally filed specification for guidance, and found that paragraph 24 states that image sensor 200 is an example of a solid-state imaging element. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Therefore, claim 1 is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite. For examination purposes, the examiner is interpreting a solid-state imaging element as a solid-state image sensor machine. Claims 2-10 depend directly or indirectly from claim 1 and are rejected for the same reasons discussed above with respect to claim 1.
Claims 1-10 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. Claims 1-5 and 8-10 recite limitations for a processing section, a digital signal processing section, an output interface, an input interface that invoke interpretation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, and are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The “processing section” is not specifically illustrated in the drawings or referenced in the specification and there is no corresponding structure, material, or acts or algorithm for performing the claimed functions that clearly links the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function. The digital signal processing section (Fig 2 #219, empty box), output interface (Fig 2 #252, #253, and #255, empty boxes) and input interface (Fig 2 #251, #254, #256, empty boxes) are illustrated in Figure 2 and referred to the originally filed specification at paragraphs 27-28 without any corresponding structure, material, or acts or algorithm for performing the claimed functions and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function. Therefore, claims 1-5 and 8-10 are indefinite and are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite.
“In cases involving a special purpose computer-implemented means-plus-function limitation, the Federal Circuit has consistently required that the structure be more than simply a general purpose computer or microprocessor and that the specification must disclose an algorithm for performing the claimed function. See, e.g., Noah Systems Inc. v. Intuit Inc.,675 F.3d 1302, 1312, 102 USPQ2d 1410, 1417 (Fed. Cir. 2012); Aristocrat, 521 F.3d at 1333, 86 USPQ2d at 1239.”
If the applicant does not want to state on the record the algorithms for performing the functions and does not want to invoke 35 USC 112(f), the claims should be amended. The applicant should state on the record that the claims are not meant to be interpreted under 35 USC 112(f) and amend the claims to not invoke 112(f) by removing the “section configured to” language from the claims and adding the specific structure, material, or acts to perform the claimed function.
Claims 6-7 depend from claims 1 and 5 and are rejected for the same reasons discussed above with respect to claims 1 and 5 above.
Claim 12 is 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 12 recites limitations for a processing section, a digital signal processing section, an output interface, an application processor that invoke interpretation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, and are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The “processing section” is not specifically illustrated in the drawings or referenced in the specification and there is no corresponding structure, material, or acts or algorithm for performing the claimed functions that clearly links the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function. The digital signal processing section (Fig 2 #219, empty box), output interface (Fig 2 #252, #253, and #255, empty boxes) are illustrated in Figure 2 and referred to the originally filed specification at paragraphs 27-28 without any corresponding structure, material, or acts or algorithm for performing the claimed functions and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function. The application processor (Figs 1, 3, 5 #120, para 22-23) is illustrated in Figures 1, 3, 5, and referred to the originally filed specification at paragraphs 22-23 without any corresponding structure, material, or acts or algorithm for performing the claimed functions and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function. Therefore, claim 12 is indefinite and are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite.
“In cases involving a special purpose computer-implemented means-plus-function limitation, the Federal Circuit has consistently required that the structure be more than simply a general purpose computer or microprocessor and that the specification must disclose an algorithm for performing the claimed function. See, e.g., Noah Systems Inc. v. Intuit Inc.,675 F.3d 1302, 1312, 102 USPQ2d 1410, 1417 (Fed. Cir. 2012); Aristocrat, 521 F.3d at 1333, 86 USPQ2d at 1239.”
If the applicant does not want to state on the record the algorithms for performing the functions and does not want to invoke 35 USC 112(f), the claims should be amended. The applicant should state on the record that the claims are not meant to be interpreted under 35 USC 112(f) and amend the claims to not invoke 112(f) by removing the “section configured to” language from the claims and adding the specific structure, material, or acts to perform the claimed function.
Claim 13 is 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 13 recites limitations for a processing section, a digital signal processing section, an output interface, an input interface, a converter, that invoke interpretation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, and are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The “processing section” is not specifically illustrated in the drawings or referenced in the specification and there is no corresponding structure, material, or acts or algorithm for performing the claimed functions that clearly links the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function. The digital signal processing section (Fig 2 #219, empty box), output interface (Fig 2 #252, #253, and #255, empty boxes) and input interface (Fig 2 #251, #254, #256, empty boxes) are illustrated in Figure 2 and referred to the originally filed specification at paragraphs 27-28 without any corresponding structure, material, or acts or algorithm for performing the claimed functions and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function. The converter (DNN converter #300, blank box Fig 4, 5) are illustrated in Figures 4-5 and referred to the originally filed specification at paragraphs 27 and 65-68 without any corresponding structure, material, or acts or algorithm for performing the claimed functions and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function. Therefore, claim 13 is indefinite and are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite.
“In cases involving a special purpose computer-implemented means-plus-function limitation, the Federal Circuit has consistently required that the structure be more than simply a general purpose computer or microprocessor and that the specification must disclose an algorithm for performing the claimed function. See, e.g., Noah Systems Inc. v. Intuit Inc.,675 F.3d 1302, 1312, 102 USPQ2d 1410, 1417 (Fed. Cir. 2012); Aristocrat, 521 F.3d at 1333, 86 USPQ2d at 1239.”
If the applicant does not want to state on the record the algorithms for performing the functions and does not want to invoke 35 USC 112(f), the claims should be amended. The applicant should state on the record that the claims are not meant to be interpreted under 35 USC 112(f) and amend the claims to not invoke 112(f) by removing the “section configured to” language from the claims and adding the specific structure, material, or acts to perform the claimed function.
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 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter, because claim 1 recites a solid-state imaging element including limitations for a processing section, a digital signal processing section, an output interface, that invoke interpretation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, and are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. However, the specification fails to disclose the corresponding structure or hardware for performing the claimed function and does not clearly link any structure or hardware to the claimed function. The processing section is not specifically illustrated in the drawings or referenced in the specification and there is no corresponding structure or hardware for performing the claimed functions that clearly links the structure or hardware to the claimed function. The digital signal processing section (Fig 2 #219, empty box) and output interface (Fig 2 #252, #253, and #255, empty boxes) are illustrated in Figure 2 and referred to the originally filed specification at paragraphs 27-28 without any corresponding structure or hardware for performing the claimed functions that is clearly linked to the claimed function. and to clearly link the structure or hardware to the claimed function. Therefore, claim 1 lacks structure or hardware for the claimed functions and the claim is software per se and is not a process, a machine, or composition of matter, as defined in 35 U.S.C. 101. Claims 2-10 depend from claim 1 and are rejected based on the same rational as set forth above with respect to claim 1 as being software per se and are not a process, a machine, or composition of matter, as defined in 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because claim 11 recites Metadata comprising: an output tensor generated by image recognition processing executed on an input tensor; and a decode parameter for decoding the output tensor. Metadata does not fall within one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because metadata is not a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter, because claim 12 recites an imaging device including limitations for a processing section, a digital signal processing section, an output interface, an application processor, that invoke interpretation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, and are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. However, the specification fails to disclose the corresponding structure or hardware for performing the claimed function and does not clearly link any structure or hardware to the claimed function. The “processing section” is not specifically illustrated in the drawings or referenced in the specification and there is no corresponding structure or hardware for performing the claimed functions that is clearly linked to the claimed function. The digital signal processing section (Fig 2 #219, empty box), output interface (Fig 2 #252, #253, and #255, empty boxes) are illustrated in Figure 2 and referred to the originally filed specification at paragraphs 27-28 without any corresponding structure or hardware that is clearly linked to the claimed function. The application processor (Figs 1, 3, 5 #120, para 22-23) is illustrated in Figures 1, 3, 5, and referred to the originally filed specification at paragraphs 22-23 without any corresponding structure or hardware hat is clearly linked to the claimed function. Therefore, claim 12 is software per se not a process, a machine, or composition of matter, as defined in 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter, because claim 13 recites an information processing system including limitations for a processing section, a digital signal processing section, an output interface, an input interface, a converter, that invoke interpretation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, and are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. However, the specification fails to disclose the corresponding structure or hardware for performing the claimed function and does not clearly link any structure or hardware to the claimed function. The “processing section” is not specifically illustrated in the drawings or referenced in the specification and there is no corresponding structure or hardware for performing the claimed functions that is clearly linked to the claimed function. The digital signal processing section (Fig 2 #219, empty box), output interface (Fig 2 #252, #253, and #255, empty boxes) and input interface (Fig 2 #251, #254, #256, empty boxes) are illustrated in Figure 2 and referred to the originally filed specification at paragraphs 27-28 without any corresponding structure or hardware for performing the claimed functions that is clearly linked to the claimed function. The converter (DNN converter #300, blank box Fig 4, 5) are illustrated in Figures 4-5 and referred to the originally filed specification at paragraphs 27 and 65-68 without any corresponding structure or hardware for performing the claimed functions that is clearly linked to the claimed function. Therefore, claim 13 is software per se not a process, a machine, or composition of matter, as defined in 35 U.S.C. 101.
Examiner Note: As discussed above, claims 1-13 are rejected as software per se and do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter and the eligibility analysis stops at this point. However, if claims 1-13 are amended only to recite one of the one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter, then claims 1-3, 5-8, 11-13 would be rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to an abstract idea without significantly more, as set forth below for example only.
For Example Only:
Claim 1, if amended to recite one of the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter, then claim 1 would be rejected as being directed to an abstract idea for further reciting, comprising a processing section configured to select any one of a plurality of DNNs (Deep Neural Networks) with different formats of an output tensor (which are mental processes or concepts that can be performed in the human mind, including observation, evaluation, judgment or opinion, or by a human using pen and paper. MPEP 210604(a)(2)(III)); processing on an input tensor to generate the output tensor; and an output a decode parameter for decoding the generated output tensor and the output tensor, (which are mathematical concepts including mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations. MPEP 210604(a)(2)(I)).
The claim does not include any additional elements which integrate the abstract idea into a practical application since the additional elements consist of:
a solid-state imaging element (This additional element amounts to merely the words to “apply it” (or an equivalent) or are mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer. MPEP 2106.05(f).) Also, this additional element amounts to no more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technologic environment or field of use - The application or use of the judicial exception in this manner does not meaningfully limit the claim by going beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. MPEP 2106.05(h)).
a digital signal processing section configured to execute image recognition (This additional element amounts to merely the words to “apply it” (or an equivalent) or are mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer. MPEP 2106.05(f).) Also, this additional element amounts to no more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technologic environment or field of use - The application or use of the judicial exception in this manner does not meaningfully limit the claim by going beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. MPEP 2106.05(h)).
by use of the selected DNN (This additional element amounts to merely the words to “apply it” (or an equivalent) or are mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer. MPEP 2106.05(f).) Also, this additional element amounts to no more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technologic environment or field of use - The application or use of the judicial exception in this manner does not meaningfully limit the claim by going beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. MPEP 2106.05(h)).
an output interface configured to (This additional element amounts to merely the words to “apply it” (or an equivalent) or are mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer. MPEP 2106.05(f).) Also, this additional element amounts to no more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technologic environment or field of use - The application or use of the judicial exception in this manner does not meaningfully limit the claim by going beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Thus, the claim is directed to the abstract idea.
Further, the additional elements, alone or in combination, do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself, because implementation on a computer (MPEP 2106.05(f)) cannot provide significantly more, and generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological field of use does not meaningfully limit the claims (MPEP 2106.04(d)) and the combination of additional elements does not provide an inventive concept. Thus, the claim is ineligible.
Claim 2, dependent on claim 1, does not include any additional elements which integrate the abstract idea into a practical application since the additional elements consist of:
an input interface configured to receive, as a DNN parameter, a parameter for causing the digital signal processing section to execute each of the plurality of DNNs, (An additional element of extra-solution activity that courts have identified is well understood, routine and conventional activity for receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the internet to gather data. See also, MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), MPEP 2106.05(g), 2019 Guidance, 84 FR 50 at 55, 2019 Guidance, 84 FR 50, footnote 31.)
wherein the digital signal processing section executes the image recognition processing on a basis of the DNN parameter (This additional element amounts to merely the words to “apply it” (or an equivalent) or are mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer. MPEP 2106.05(f).) Also, this additional element amounts to no more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technologic environment or field of use - The application or use of the judicial exception in this manner does not meaningfully limit the claim by going beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Claim 3, dependent on claim 1, recites additional mathematical concepts for
further outputs the input tensor (which are mathematical concepts including mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations. MPEP 210604(a)(2)(I)).
Claim 3 does not include any additional elements which integrate the abstract idea into a practical application since the additional elements consist of:
wherein the output interface (This additional element amounts to merely the words to “apply it” (or an equivalent) or are mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer. MPEP 2106.05(f).) Also, this additional element amounts to no more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technologic environment or field of use - The application or use of the judicial exception in this manner does not meaningfully limit the claim by going beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Claim 5, dependent on claim 3, recites additional abstract ideas for outputs the input tensor and the output tensor (which are mathematical concepts including mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations. MPEP 210604(a)(2)(I)) to each of which a header is added (which are mental processes or concepts that can be performed in the human mind, including observation, evaluation, judgment or opinion, or by a human using pen and paper. MPEP 210604(a)(2)(III)).
Claim 5 does not include any additional elements which integrate the abstract idea into a practical application since the additional elements consist of:
wherein the output interface (This additional element amounts to merely the words to “apply it” (or an equivalent) or are mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer. MPEP 2106.05(f).) Also, this additional element amounts to no more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technologic environment or field of use - The application or use of the judicial exception in this manner does not meaningfully limit the claim by going beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Claim 6, dependent on claim 5, recites only additional mental processes for wherein the header added to the input tensor includes a validity flag indicating whether or not the input tensor is valid, and the header added to the output tensor includes a validity flag indicating whether or not the output tensor is valid (which are mental processes or concepts that can be performed in the human mind, including observation, evaluation, judgment or opinion, or by a human using pen and paper. MPEP 210604(a)(2)(III)).
Claim 7, dependent on claim 5, recites only additional mental processes and mathematical concepts for wherein the header added to the input tensor and the header added to the output tensor corresponding to the input tensor (which are mental processes or concepts that can be performed in the human mind, including observation, evaluation, judgment or opinion, or by a human using pen and paper. MPEP 210604(a)(2)(III)) include a frame count of a same value (which are mathematical concepts including mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations. MPEP 210604(a)(2)(I)).
Claim 8, dependent on claim 1, recites only additional mental processes and mathematical concepts for wherein the input tensor includes a first input tensor and a second input tensor (which are mathematical concepts including mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations. MPEP 210604(a)(2)(I)).
Claim 8 does not include any additional elements which integrate the abstract idea into a practical application since the additional elements consist of:
the plurality of DNNs includes a first DNN and a second DNN, and the digital signal processing section uses the first DNN for the first input tensor and uses the second DNN for the second input tensor (This additional element amounts to merely the words to “apply it” (or an equivalent) or are mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer. MPEP 2106.05(f).) Also, this additional element amounts to no more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technologic environment or field of use - The application or use of the judicial exception in this manner does not meaningfully limit the claim by going beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Claim 11, if amended to recite one of the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter, then claim 11 would be rejected as being directed to an abstract idea for further reciting, metadata comprising an output tensor generated by processing executed on an input tensor; and a decode parameter for decoding the output tensor (which are mathematical concepts including mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations. MPEP 210604(a)(2)(I)). Claim 11 does not include any additional elements which integrate the abstract idea into a practical application since the additional elements consist of: image recognition (This additional element amounts to merely the words to “apply it” (or an equivalent) or are mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer. MPEP 2106.05(f).) Also, this additional element amounts to no more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technologic environment or field of use - The application or use of the judicial exception in this manner does not meaningfully limit the claim by going beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Claim 12 if amended to recite one of the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter, then claim 12 would be rejected as being directed to an abstract idea for further reciting, comprising processing section configured to select any one of a plurality of DNNs (Deep Neural Networks) with different formats of an output tensor; (which are mental processes or concepts that can be performed in the human mind, including observation, evaluation, judgment or opinion, or by a human using pen and paper. MPEP 210604(a)(2)(III)) processing on an input tensor to generate the output tensor; output a decode parameter for decoding the generated output tensor and the output tensor; and decode the output tensor that has been output, by use of the decode parameter (which are mathematical concepts including mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations. MPEP 210604(a)(2)(I)).
The claim does not include any additional elements which integrate the abstract idea into a practical application since the additional elements consist of:
imaging device (This additional element amounts to merely the words to “apply it” (or an equivalent) or are mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer. MPEP 2106.05(f).) Also, this additional element amounts to no more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technologic environment or field of use - The application or use of the judicial exception in this manner does not meaningfully limit the claim by going beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. MPEP 2106.05(h)).
a digital signal processing section configured to execute image recognition (This additional element amounts to merely the words to “apply it” (or an equivalent) or are mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer. MPEP 2106.05(f).) Also, this additional element amounts to no more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technologic environment or field of use - The application or use of the judicial exception in this manner does not meaningfully limit the claim by going beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. MPEP 2106.05(h)).
by use of the selected DNN (This additional element amounts to merely the words to “apply it” (or an equivalent) or are mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer. MPEP 2106.05(f).) Also, this additional element amounts to no more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technologic environment or field of use - The application or use of the judicial exception in this manner does not meaningfully limit the claim by going beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. MPEP 2106.05(h)).
an output interface configured to (This additional element amounts to merely the words to “apply it” (or an equivalent) or are mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer. MPEP 2106.05(f).) Also, this additional element amounts to no more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technologic environment or field of use - The application or use of the judicial exception in this manner does not meaningfully limit the claim by going beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. MPEP 2106.05(h)).
an application processor configured to (This additional element amounts to merely the words to “apply it” (or an equivalent) or are mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer. MPEP 2106.05(f).) Also, this additional element amounts to no more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technologic environment or field of use - The application or use of the judicial exception in this manner does not meaningfully limit the claim by going beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Thus, the claim is directed to the abstract idea.
Further, the additional elements, alone or in combination, do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself, because implementation on a computer (MPEP 2106.05(f)) cannot provide significantly more, and generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological field of use does not meaningfully limit the claims (MPEP 2106.04(d)) and the combination of additional elements does not provide an inventive concept. Thus, the claim is ineligible.
Claim 13 if amended to recite one of the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter, then claim 13 would be rejected as being directed to an abstract idea for further reciting, comprising: a processing section configured to select any one of a plurality of DNNs (Deep Neural Networks) with different formats of an output tensor; (which are mental processes or concepts that can be performed in the human mind, including observation, evaluation, judgment or opinion, or by a human using pen and paper. MPEP 210604(a)(2)(III)) processing on an input tensor to generate the output tensor; output a decode parameter for decoding the generated output tensor and the output tensor; and a converter configured to generate each of the decode parameters and supply the generated decode parameter (which are mathematical concepts including mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations. MPEP 210604(a)(2)(I)).
The claim does not include any additional elements which integrate the abstract idea into a practical application since the additional elements consist of:
a digital signal processing section configured to execute image recognition (This additional element amounts to merely the words to “apply it” (or an equivalent) or are mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer. MPEP 2106.05(f).) Also, this additional element amounts to no more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technologic environment or field of use - The application or use of the judicial exception in this manner does not meaningfully limit the claim by going beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. MPEP 2106.05(h)).
by use of the selected DNN (This additional element amounts to merely the words to “apply it” (or an equivalent) or are mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer. MPEP 2106.05(f).) Also, this additional element amounts to no more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technologic environment or field of use - The application or use of the judicial exception in this manner does not meaningfully limit the claim by going beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. MPEP 2106.05(h)).
an output interface configured to (This additional element amounts to merely the words to “apply it” (or an equivalent) or are mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer. MPEP 2106.05(f).) Also, this additional element amounts to no more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technologic environment or field of use - The application or use of the judicial exception in this manner does not meaningfully limit the claim by going beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. MPEP 2106.05(h)).
an input interface configured to receive the decode parameters corresponding to each of the plurality of DNNs (An additional element of extra-solution activity that courts have identified is well understood, routine and conventional activity for receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the internet to gather data. See also, MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), MPEP 2106.05(g), 2019 Guidance, 84 FR 50 at 55, 2019 Guidance, 84 FR 50, footnote 31.)
to the input interface (This additional element amounts to merely the words to “apply it” (or an equivalent) or are mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer. MPEP 2106.05(f).) Also, this additional element amounts to no more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technologic environment or field of use - The application or use of the judicial exception in this manner does not meaningfully limit the claim by going beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Thus, the claim is directed to the abstract idea.
Further, the additional elements, alone or in combination, do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself, because implementation on a computer (MPEP 2106.05(f)) cannot provide significantly more, and generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological field of use does not meaningfully limit the claims (MPEP 2106.04(d)), and transmitting data over a network is well-understood, routine and conventional (MPEP 2106.05(d), and the combination of additional elements does not provide an inventive concept. Thus, the claim is ineligible.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US-20210300348-A1, US-20190244078-A1, US-20190244086-A1, US-10795836-B2, US-20180285717-A1.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BARBARA LEVEL whose telephone number is (303)297-4748. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday 8:00 AM - 5:00 PM MT.
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, Mariela Reyes can be reached at (571) 270-1006. 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.
/BARBARA M LEVEL/Examiner, Art Unit 2142