Part III DETAILED ACTION
1. The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions. This application has been examined. Claims 1-30 are pending in this application.
2. The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
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.
3. Claim(s) 1-30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover mental process (concept performed in a human mind, including as observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion, organizing human activity and/or mathematical concepts and calculations). The independent claim(s) recite(s) an apparatus (method or program) for generating or creating a composite image using images from a region of interest (which describe observation, receiving data and evaluating (analyzing) of data). This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the steps do not add meaningful limitations to be considered specifically applied to a particular technological problem to be solved .The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the steps of the claimed invention can be done mentally and no additional features in the claims would preclude them from being performed as such except for the generic computer elements at high level of generality (i.e., processor, memory).
According to the USPTO guidelines, a claim is directed to non-statutory subject matter if:
STEP 1: the claims do not fall within one of the four statutory categories of invention (process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter), or
STEP 2: the claim recites a judicial exception, e.g. an abstract idea, without reciting additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, as determined using the following analysis:
STEP 2A (PRONG 1): Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
STEP 2A (PRONG 2): Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
STEP 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
Using the two-step inquiry, it is clear that independent claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea as shown below:
STEP 1: Do the claims fall within one of the statutory categories? YES. Independent claim(s) 1 and 14 are directed to an apparatus. method and/or computer program.
STEP 2A (PRONG 1): Is the claim directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon or an abstract idea? YES , the claims are directed toward a mental process (i.e. abstract idea).
With regard to STEP 2A (PRONG 1), the guidelines provide three groupings of subject matter that are considered abstract ideas:
Mathematical concepts – mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations; certain methods of organizing human activity – fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions); and Mental processes – concepts that are practicably performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). The apparatus, method and/or computer program in claims 1,15,29 and 30 recites a mental process that can be practicably performed in the human mind (piece of paper or generic computers or components configured to perform the system) and, therefore, an abstract idea.
Regarding Claim(s) 1,15,29 and 30: recites An apparatus for generating a composite image, the apparatus comprising: at least one memory; and at least one processor coupled to the at least one memory and configured to (reads on a genetic computer): receive first data representative of an image of a field of view from an array of photodiodes of an image sensor (equal to a mental process including receiving data from a field of view of an image generated by a photodiode data, can be done mentally in the human mind; similar to recognizing point in an image and having a reference point(s) on an image, a process that can be performed in a piece of paper, mental step or genetic computer) ; receive second data representative of an image of a region of interest within the field of view from a subset of the array of photodiodes, wherein the region of interest is smaller than the field of view, wherein the subset of the array of photodiodes within the array of photodiodes corresponds to the region of interest within the field of view, and wherein the subset of the array of photodiodes includes fewer photodiodes than the array of photodiodes (equal to a mental process including receiving data from a different field of view of an image generated by a photodiode data that can be done mentally in the human mind; similar to recognizing point in an image and having a reference point(s) on an image, a process that can be performed in a piece of paper, mental step or genetic computer); and generate a composite image of the field of view based on the first data and the second data. (equal to a mental process including gathering that can be done mentally in the human mind; similar to recognizing point in an image and having a reference point(s) on an image, a process that can be performed in a piece of paper, mental step or genetic computer) . Claims do not recite a practical application or improvement to generation of composite images.
These limitations, as drafted, is a simple process that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations in the mind or by a human. The Examiner notes that under MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III), the courts consider a mental process (thinking) that “can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper" to be an abstract idea. CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1372, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1695 (Fed. Cir. 2011). As the Federal Circuit explained, "methods which can be performed mentally, or which are the equivalent of human mental work, are unpatentable abstract ideas the ‘basic tools of scientific and technological work’ that are open to all.’" 654 F.3d at 1371, 99 USPQ2d at 1694 (citing Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 175 USPQ 673 (1972)). See also Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs. Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 71, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1965 ("‘[M]ental processes[] and abstract intellectual concepts are not patentable, as they are the basic tools of scientific and technological work’" (quoting Benson, 409 U.S. at 67, 175 USPQ at 675)); Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 589, 198 USPQ 193, 197 (1978) (same). As such, a person could mentally analyze an image (or hand gesture) and determine or analyze the received data , either mentally or using a pen and/or paper. The mere nominal recitation that the various steps are being executed by a device/in a device (e.g. hardware processor), do not take the limitations out of the mental process grouping. Thus, the claim(s) 1,15,29 and 30 recite a mental process without reciting significantly more.
STEP 2A (PRONG 2): Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? NO, the feature(s) of using a processor for receiving, analyzing, and/or gathering of data and receiving data captured by form different photodiodes, recite using a well known method(s) (or steps) for processing, analyzing, and/or gathering of data, and do not amount to significantly more. Claim(s) 2-14 and 16-28 do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or add additional elements that equal to significantly more.
With regard to STEP 2A (prong 2), whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, the guidelines provide the following exemplary considerations that are indicative that an additional element (or combination of elements) may have integrated the judicial exception into a practical application:
an additional element reflects an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field;
an additional element that applies or uses a judicial exception to affect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition;
an additional element implements a judicial exception with, or uses a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim;
an additional element effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; and
an additional element applies or uses the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
While the guidelines further state that the exemplary considerations are not an exhaustive list and that there may be other examples of integrating the exception into a practical application, the guidelines also list examples in which a judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application:
an additional element merely recites the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely includes instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea;
an additional element adds insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception; and
an additional element does no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
Claim(s) 2-14 and 16-28 does/do not recite any additional elements that are not well-understood, routine or conventional. The use of a computer to perform “receiving analyzing, storing, comparing and display of data , are well-understood and conventional process that is performed by computers.
Thus, since independent claim(s) 1,9,15,29 and 30 is/are: (a) directed toward an abstract idea, (b) do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, and (c) do not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, it is clear that Claim(s) 1-30 is/are not eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C 101.
Regarding claims 2-14 and 16-28: the additional limitations in claims 2-14 and 16-28, do not integrate the mental process into practical application or add significantly more to the mental process. The limitation(s): the features of claims 2-14 and 16-28 recite insignificant pre-solution extra activity of generating data ; Accordingly, the additional element(s) does/do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the limitation(s) does/do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
4. Claim(s) 1-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Molholm (2021/0099632).
With regard to claim 1, Molholm teaches an apparatus for generating a composite image (reads on figs. 2-4), the apparatus comprising: at least one memory; and at least one processor coupled to the at least one memory and configured to (inherently reads on abstract and claim 1): receive first data representative of an image of a field of view from an array of photodiodes of an image sensor; receive second data representative of an image of a region of interest within the field of view from a subset of the array of photodiodes, wherein the region of interest is smaller than the field of view, wherein the subset of the array of photodiodes within the array of photodiodes corresponds to the region of interest within the field of view (reads on figs. 1-3 and 4a-4e, and wherein the subset of the array of photodiodes includes fewer photodiodes than the array of photodiodes (reads on figs. 3-4, clear images are blend or combine); and generate a composite image of the field of view based on the first data and the second data (reads on figs. 3 and 4a-4e, and the description thereof).
e).
With regard to claim 2, Molholm further teaches wherein the at least one processor is further configured to determine the region of interest within the field of view (see fig. 3, step 304).
With regard to claim 3, Molholm further teaches wherein the at least one processor is further configured to determine the subset of the array of photodiodes based on a correspondence between a relationship between the subset of the array of photodiodes and the array of photodiodes and a relationship between the region of interest and the field of view (reads on figs. 3 and 3a-4e, and the description thereof).
With regard to claim 4, Molholm further teaches wherein a first portion of the composite image corresponding to the region of interest is associated with a first dynamic range and a second portion of the composite image outside of the region of interest is associated with a second dynamic range (reads on figs. 4a-4e, and the description thereof).
With regard to claim 5, Molholm further teaches wherein the first data is associated with first one or more image-capture parameters, and wherein the second data is associated with second one or more image-capture parameters (see fig. 3, and the description thereof).
With regard to claim 6, Molholm further teaches wherein the first one or more image-capture parameters comprise at least one of a first exposure time, a first pixel conversion gain, or a first sensor analog gain, and wherein the second one or more image-capture parameters comprise at least one of a second exposure time, a second pixel conversion gain, or a second sensor analog gain (see abstract and claim 1).
With regard to claim 7, Molholm further teaches wherein the at least one processor is further configured to determine the region of interest based on an object detected in the image of the field of view (see fig. 3, steps 302 and 304).
. With regard to claim 8, Molholm further teaches wherein the at least one processor is further configured to determine the region of interest based a gaze of a viewer (see figs. 1 and 3).
With regard to claim 9, Molholm further teaches wherein to receive the first data from the array of photodiodes of the image sensor the at least one processor is configured to receive the first data from all of the photodiodes of the array of photodiodes (reads on the ambient light sensor as described in the abstract and claim 1) .
With regard to claim 10, Molholm further teaches wherein to receive the first data from the array of photodiodes of the image sensor the at least one processor is configured to receive the first data from fewer than all of the photodiodes of the array of photodiodes (reads on figs.2-4,and the description thereof, the different portion of the sensor are used to capture images).
With regard to claim 11, Molholm further teaches wherein to receive the second data from the subset of the array of photodiodes the at least one processor is configured to receive the second data only from the subset of the array of photodiodes (reads on figs.2-4,and the description thereof, the different portion of the sensor are used to capture images).
With regard to claim 12, Molholm further teaches the different portion of the sensor are used to capture images).wherein to receive the second data from the subset of the array of photodiodes the at least one processor is configured to not receive data from any of the photo diodes of the array of photodiodes outside the subset of the array of photodiodes (reads on figs.2-4,and the description thereof, the different portion of the sensor are used to capture images).
With regard to claim 13, Molholm further teaches wherein to generate the composite image the at least one processor is configured to overwrite a portion of the first data representative of the region of interest with the second data (see fig. 3).
With regard to claim 14, Molholm further teaches wherein the at least one processor is further configured to blend a second portion of the first data representative of a periphery of the region of interest with the second data (see fig. 3).
With regard to claims 15-30, the limitations of claims 15-30 are covered by the limitations of apparatus claims 1-14 above. Clearly the functions and steps of claims 15-30 are covered the limitations of claims 1-14 above.
Conclusion
5. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Feng et al. (2024/0144717) teaches an image enhancement for image regions of interest.
Hanchate et al. (2022/0174213) teaches a camera fusion architecture to enhance image quality in the region of interest.
Kumar et al. (2021/0302991) teaches a method and system for generating an enhanced field of view for an autonomous ground vehicle.
6. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Gabriel I. Garcia whose telephone number is (571) 272-7434. The Examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday from 7:30 AM-6:00 PM. The fax phone number for this group is (571) 273-8300.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Benny Tieu can be reached on (571) 272-7490. 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.
Any inquiry of a general nature or relating to the status of this application should be directed to the Group receptionist whose telephone number is (571) 272-2600.
/Gabriel I Garcia/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2682
July 22, 2025
Prosecution Insights