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
INFORMATION DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 10/07/2025 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
Claim Status
The examiner acknowledges the amendment of claims 1, 8 & 16, addition of claim 19 and the cancellation of claims 4 & 7 filed 03/02/2026.
Restriction – Non Elected Claims in Withdrawn Status
Applicant is reminded withdrawn claims 12-15 are required to be cancelled.
Double Patenting Rejection
The examiner acknowledges the amendment of claims 1, 8 & 16, addition of claim 19 and the cancellation of claims 4 & 7 filed 03/02/2026. After carefully reviewing applicant amendments, double patenting guidance and applicant commonly owned claims, claim limitations are sufficient to overcome grounds of rejection.
35 USC 101 REJECTION
The examiner acknowledges the amendment of claims 1, 8 & 16, addition of claim 19 and the cancellation of claims 4 & 7 filed 03/02/2026. After carefully reviewing applicant amendments, 35 USC 101 guidance and claim limitations, examiner respectfully disagrees.
Applicant submits applicant amendments improves computer-based image processing technology. In response, examiner submits claim improvement is described at too high a level (i.e. better accuracy and reduced computational burden for distance estimation). However, the claim does not recite how the computer of CNN is technically improved. Examiner submits claims recite a generic CNN as a tool to process image related inputs and produce a result. In view of above arguments, examiner submits rejection is sufficient and respectfully maintained.
Applicant submits claim are not a mental process because they are tied to optics, an image sensor and per-pixel position. In response, examiner submits claim scope is gathering image and related camera-state/position data, evaluating that information with a model, and determining distance information. Examiner views claim scope (e.g. observation, evaluation and judgment) as falling under mental processes. In view of above arguments, examiner submits rejection is sufficient and respectfully maintained.
Applicant submits claims are directed to estimating a physical quantity from a physical imaging system. In response, examiner submits estimating a physical quantity does not in itself make the claim non-abstract. The optical system and image sensor are not claimed as being improved, controlled, recalibrated or transformed in any specific way, they are simply the source of the image and metadata. Examiner submits claimed elements are not directed to an improved camera, improved sensor or improved optical process. In view of above arguments, examiner submits rejection is sufficient and respectfully maintained.
Applicant submits claimed first and second information are integral, not only data gathering. In response, examiner submits inputs can be important and still be classified as data gathering and outputting as insignificant extra solution activity when they do not meaningfully limit the exception. Under 35 USC 101 guidance, these limitations remain insignificant post solution activity. In view of above arguments, examiner submits rejection is sufficient and respectfully maintained.
Applicant submits limitations disclosing CNN limitations make this a concrete technological implementation. In response, examiner submits a CNN in itself is still generic. Examples of CNN modifications that could push a generic CNN beyond generic are specific kernel arrangement, training constraint, feature extraction mechanism, hardware deployment, memory layout. In view of above arguments, examiner submits rejection is sufficient and respectfully maintained.
Applicant submits limitations defocus blur; pixel position or optical state conditioning are specific technical solutions. In response, examiner submits limitations do not say how the model technically achieves said limitations in a way that improves computing or imaging technology. Examiner submits above limitations are not seen as a practical application with non-generic elements. In view of above arguments, examiner submits rejection is sufficient and respectfully maintained.
Applicants submits the claim solves a problem rooted in optics and digital image processing. In response, examiner submits claim as a whole must reflect the technical improvement (e.g. specific improved imaging pipeline, a modified capture process, or a concrete image processing operation applied to the image sensor or optical system). Examiner views claim as an information processing solution in a technical field, not a technological improvement to the field itself. In view of above arguments, examiner submits rejection is sufficient and respectfully maintained.
Applicant submits as to Step 2B, the claim recites significantly more. In response, examiner submits claim only adds generic components performing their ordinary roles. For example, a generic CNN is used wherein the claim merely instructs one to apply a generic machine learning model to collect image related data in order to infer distance information. In view of above arguments, examiner submits rejection is sufficient and respectfully maintained.
In view of above arguments, examiner submits rejection is sufficient and respectfully maintained.
Prior Art Rejection
The examiner acknowledges the amendment of claims 1, 8 & 16, addition of claim 19 and the cancellation of claim 7 filed 03/02/2026.
After carefully reviewing applicant arguments, prior art references and claim limitations, examiner submits arguments are sufficient to overcome grounds of rejection.
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 1-3, 5-6, 8-11 & 16-19 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 & 16
Step 1
This step inquires “is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter?” Yes,
Claim 1 – “Method” is a process.
Claim 16 - “Systems” are machines.
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 “acquiring input data including a captured image, first information, and second information inputting the input data into a machine learning model comprising a convolutional neural network; and estimating distance information based on defocus blur in the captured image using the machine learning model, wherein the captured image is obtained by capturing an object using an optical system and an image sensor, wherein the first information is information about a state of the optical system including at least one of a focal length, an F-number, and a focused object distance, wherein the second information is information about a respective position of each pixel in the captured image, and wherein the distance information is information about the distance to the object, at the time of the capturing, which corresponds to the position of each pixel in the captured image.”, 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 “first apparatus, second apparatus, transmission unit, receiving unit, acquiring unit, estimating unit, machine learning model” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “acquiring input data including a captured image, first information, and second information inputting the input data into a machine learning model comprising a convolutional neural network; and estimating distance information based on defocus blur in the captured image using the machine learning model, wherein the captured image is obtained by capturing an object using an optical system and an image sensor, wherein the first information is information about a state of the optical system including at least one of a focal length, an F-number, and a focused object distance, wherein the second information is information about a respective position of each pixel in the captured image, and wherein the distance information is information about the distance to the object, at the time of the capturing, which corresponds to the position of each pixel in the captured image.”, language, “receiving, acquiring, estimating” 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 “first apparatus, second apparatus, transmission unit, receiving unit, acquiring unit, estimating unit, machine learning model” to perform “receiving, acquiring, estimating” steps. The “first apparatus, second apparatus, transmission unit, receiving unit, acquiring unit, estimating unit, machine learning model” are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor) “a first apparatus and a second apparatus that can communicate with each other, wherein the first apparatus includes a transmission unit configured to transmit a request for executing processing for the captured image to the second apparatus, and wherein the second apparatus includes: a receiving unit configured to receive the request; an acquiring unit configured to acquire input data including the captured image and information about a state of an optical system that was used to capture the captured image; and an estimating unit configured to input the input data into a machine learning model and to estimate distance information about the captured image based on the request, wherein the information about the state of the optical system includes at least one of a focal length, an F-number, and a focused object distance.”, 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 “first apparatus, second apparatus, transmission unit, receiving unit, acquiring unit, estimating unit, machine learning model” to perform “receiving, acquiring, estimating” steps amount 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 is directed to generic computer components (“machine learning model”), mental process (“selecting a sub-area/ROI; estimating from patches”) and insignificant extra-solution activity (“choosing a smaller area prior to the core estimation”). Thus, 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 is directed to mental process (“normalization of numeric features (scaling/standardization)”) and insignificant extra-solution activity (“data gathering and pre-processing”). Thus, 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 is directed to mental process (“multi-channel encoding”) and insignificant extra-solution activity (“data organization choice”). Thus, 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 is directed to mental process (“broadcasting/tiling constants across an array”) and insignificant extra-solution activity (“data formatting convention (constant per channel ”). Thus, 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 is directed to mental process (“computing image-circle length; normalization/scaling are mathematical operations”) and insignificant extra-solution activity (“pre-processing/normalization”). Thus, this claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or constitute significantly more than the abstract.
As to claim 9, this claim is directed to mental process (“treating pixel pitch as a scalar feature; any scaling is mathematical”) and insignificant extra-solution activity (“data gathering and feature inclusion”). Thus, this claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or constitute significantly more than the abstract.
As to claim 10, this claim is directed to generic computer components (“storage medium and processor”). Thus, this claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or constitute significantly more than the abstract.
As to claim 11, this claim is directed to generic computer components (“processor”). Thus, 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 is directed to generic computer components (“a general processor/computer executing; Not specialize hardware”). Thus, 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 is directed to generic computer components (“generic hardware/processor”). Thus, this claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or constitute significantly more than the abstract.
As to claim 19, this claim is directed to generic computer components (“generic processor/computer”). Thus, 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 1-3, 5-6, 8-11 & 16-19 in their current form.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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