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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 04/02/2026was and is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s arguments and claim amendments, see P. 1 - P. 2, filed 01/27/2026, with respect to independent claims 1, 9, and 15 have been fully considered but are not found convincing. The 35 U.S.C. 101 abstract idea rejection of 01/27/2026 has NOT been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments and claim amendments, see P. 3 - P. 5, filed 01/27/2026, with respect to independent claims 1, 9, and 15 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 U.S.C. 102 rejection of 01/27/2026 has been withdrawn.
Since all dependent claims depended upon claims 1, 9, or 15, the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of 01/27/2026 has also been withdrawn.
Applicant’s claim amendments of adding claims 21-23 is acknowledged.
Regarding claim 1, the amendment to the claim added:
“obtaining region information from the third region, and
identifying details of the second object in a case where the region information satisfies a predetermined condition, the predetermined condition being the length or size of the third region is greater than a threshold value, or that the third region is located at a predetermined position.”
For “obtaining region information from the third region”, examiner believes this is mental process of determining a certain type of region information, including size, color, shape, etc. A human can mentally determine at least one of the above region information.
For “identifying details of the second object in a case where the region information satisfies a predetermined condition, the predetermined condition being the length or size of the third region is greater than a threshold value, or that the third region is located at a predetermined position”, examiner believes it is still in the realm of mental process.
Firstly, “identifying details of the second object in a case where the region information satisfies a predetermined condition” is mental process of determining if a condition is satisfied. Identifying details can be any kind of detail such as size, color, shape, etc. A human can mentally determine at least one of the above details.
Secondly, “the predetermined condition being the length or size of the third region is greater than a threshold value, or that the third region is located at a predetermined position” does not further establish the claim beyond mental process. The length or size of the third region can be measured simply with a ruler or even with comparing the length to a line on a paper. As for “the third region is located at a predetermine position”, a person can mentally determine that the third region is in the middle of image, next to one of the first or second object or other types of location description of the third region.
As such, independent claims 1, 9, and 15 are still rejected under 101 abstract idea 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.
Claim(s) 1-20 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 processes (concepts performed in a human mind, including as an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion, organizing human activity and/or mathematical concepts and calculations). The independent claim(s) 1, 9, and 15 recite(s) a system for detecting multiple region of interests in an image and performing operation on the region of interests or objects within the regions. 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 claim does 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 the independent claims XXX are directed to an abstract idea as shown below:
STEP 1: Do the claims fall within one of the statutory categories? YES. Independent claims 1, 9, and 15 are directed to a system for information processing.
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 processes and/or mathematical concepts (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).
Independent claims 1, 9, and 15 comprise mental processes and/or mathematical concepts that can be practicably performed in the human mind (or generic computers or components configured to perform the method) and, therefore, an abstract idea.
Regarding independent claim(s) 1, 9, and 15, the limitations recite:
detecting a first region including a first object and a second region including a second object from the image (The step of determining multiple regions and objects within falls into the “mental processes” grouping of abstract ideas because determining multiple regions and objects within can be performed in the human mind as an observation, evaluation, judgement or opinion. A person can determine that two people are standing next to each other in an image.),
perform processing related to the second object based on a third region obtained by the first region and the second region (The step of performing a process on the second object and determining a third region based on the first and second region falls into the “mental processes” grouping of abstract ideas because determining a third region can be performed in the human mind as an observation, evaluation, judgement or opinion. A person can determine the overlap region of two objects in an image and compare the size difference of the overlapping and non-overlapping region of the second image.),
obtaining region information from the third region (The step of obtaining region information falls into the “mental processes” grouping of abstract ideas because obtaining region information can be performed in the human mind as an observation, evaluation, judgement or opinion. A person can determine a color of the third region.), and
identifying details of the second object in a case where the region information satisfies a predetermined condition, the predetermined condition being the length or size of the third region is greater than a threshold value, or that the third region is located at a predetermined position (The step of identifying detail of the second region falls into the “mental processes” grouping of abstract ideas because identifying details can be performed in the human mind as an observation, evaluation, judgement or opinion. A person can determine a color of the second region. In addition, the step of determining if the previously obtained region information satisfies a predetermined condition such as length or size, or appearing at a predetermined location also falls into the “mental processes” grouping of abstract ideas. A human can determine if the conditions are met. Furthermore, as stated previously, both the length or size of the third region is greater than a threshold value and the third region is located at a predetermined position are mental process as well. A human can measure if the length or size of the third region is above a certain threshold by comparing to a pre-drawn line on a paper or use a ruler. A human can mentally determine that the third region appears in the middle or the image).
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 determine multiple regions and objects in an image and perform a process on one of the objects. The mere nominal recitation that the various steps are being executed by a processor does not take the limitations out of the mental process and/or mathematical concepts groupings. Thus, the claims recite a mental process.
STEP 2A (PRONG 2): Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? NO, the claims do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
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.
Independent claims 1, 9, and 15 do not recite any of the exemplary considerations that are indicative of an abstract idea having been integrated into a practical application.
Independent claims 1 and 9 discloses a memory and/or a processor, which are generic computer components that do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea in a device.
Independent claims 9 discloses an a non-transitory recording medium, which is generic computer component that do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea in a system.
Independent claims 1, 9, and 15 discloses acquiring an image, which is insignificant pre-solution extra activity of gathering data that do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea in a system.
These limitations are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general action or change being taken based on the results of the acquiring step) and amounts to mere post solution actions, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. Further, the claims are claimed generically and are operating in their ordinary capacity such that they do not use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
STEP 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No, the claims do not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
With regard to STEP 2B, whether the claims recite additional elements that provide significantly more than the recited judicial exception, the guidelines specify that the pre-guideline procedure is still in effect. Specifically, that examiners should continue to consider whether an additional element or combination of elements:
adds a specific limitation or combination of limitations that are not well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field, which is indicative that an inventive concept may be present; or
simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, which is indicative that an inventive concept may not be present.
Independent claim(s) 1, 9, and 15 do not recite any additional elements that are not well-understood, routine or conventional. The use of a generic computer elements are routine, well-understood and conventional process that is performed by computers.
Thus, since independent claims 1, 9, and 15 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 independent claims 1, 9, and 15 are not eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C 101.
Regarding claim(s) 3, 11, and 17: the additional limitations do not integrate the mental process into a practical application or add significantly more to the mental process. The limitation(s):
wherein the region information includes a length of the third region, and
wherein the one or more are further configured to execute, in accordance with the one or more instructions, operations comprising: a process related to the second object based on the length of the third region falls into the mental processes grouping of abstract ideas.
Regarding claim(s) 4, 12, and 18: the additional limitations do not integrate the mental process into a practical application or add significantly more to the mental process. The limitation(s):
obtaining position information about the third region, and
a process related to the second object based on the position information about the third region falls into the mental processes grouping of abstract ideas.
Regarding claim(s) 5, 13, and 19: the additional limitations do not integrate the mental process into a practical application or add significantly more to the mental process. The limitation(s):
obtaining the region information based on a plurality of the third regions obtained from a plurality of images falls into the mental processes grouping of abstract ideas.
Regarding claim(s) 6, 14, and 20: the additional limitations do not integrate the mental process into a practical application or add significantly more to the mental process. The limitation(s):
correcting the third region based on any of information about the image, information about the first object, and information about the second object falls into the mental processes grouping of abstract ideas.
Regarding claim(s) 8: the additional limitations do not integrate the mental process into a practical application or add significantly more to the mental process. The limitations:
making a notification related to the second object in a case where the region information satisfies a predetermined condition is insignificant post-solution activity of generating data that does not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea.
Regarding claim(s) 21-23, the additional limitation(s) the predetermined position is represented using two-dimensional coordinates are NOT directed toward an abstract idea since it recites additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application and add significantly more that the judicial exception. Therefore, claim(s) 21-23 are not directed to an abstract idea and therefore are not rejected under 35 USC 101.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 21-23 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the relevant limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Examiner notes that the independent claims currently contains multiple conditional branches separated by “or” (“length or size” and “…greater than a threshold, or …located at a predetermine position”). Claims 21-23 only applies to one of the branches within the independent claims. As such, simply moving the claims up will not overcome the current 101 abstract idea rejection as the other branches of the independent claims will sustain 101 abstract rejection.
Relevant Prior Art Directed to State of Art
Sagawa et al. (US 9,147,105 B2, hereinafter Sagawa) is prior art not applied in the rejection(s) above. Sagawa discloses an image recognizing apparatus that is equipped with: a detecting unit configured to detect, from an input image, a candidate area for a target of recognition, based on a likelihood of a partial area in the input image; an extracting unit configured to extract, from a plurality of candidate areas detected by the detecting unit, a set of the candidate areas which are in an overlapping relation; a classifying unit configured to classify an overlapping state of the set of the candidate areas; and a discriminating unit configured to discriminate whether or not the respective candidate areas are the target of recognition, based on the overlapping state of the set of the candidate areas and the respective likelihoods of the candidate areas.
Sano. (US 9,367,747 B2, hereinafter Sano) is prior art not applied in the rejection(s) above. Sano discloses an image processing apparatus that includes a detection unit which detects an object which is included in an image; and a determination unit which determines a positional relationship between a detected object and a protective barrier region in a depth direction of the image based on a feature amount relating to at least one of the detected object and the protective barrier region, when the detected object and the protective barrier region overlap with each other in the image.
Lindberg et al. (US 2019/0371072 A1, hereinafter Lindberg) is prior art not applied in the rejection(s) above. Lindberg discloses a method for obtaining an image of a physical environment using the image sensor; detecting a depiction of a real object in the image; determining a 3D location of the object in a three dimensional (3D) space based on the depiction of the object in the image and a 3D model of the object; determining an occlusion based on the 3D location of the real object and a 3D location of the virtual object in the 3D space; and displaying a computer-generated reality (CGR) experience on a display based on the occlusion, the CGR experience comprising the real object and the virtual object, wherein at least a portion of the real object or the virtual object is occluded.
Hashimoto et al. (US 11,093,801 B2, hereinafter Hashimoto) is prior art not applied in the rejection(s) above. Hashimoto discloses an object detection device includes a processor configured to calculate, for each of a plurality of regions in an input image, a confidence indicating a degree of certainty that an object to be detected is represented; determine that the object is represented in a first region for which the confidence is equal to or higher than a first confidence threshold; calculate an occlusion ratio of an occluded region, in which the object is occluded in the first region by another object, to the first region; and determine that the object to be detected is represented in a second region which at least partially overlaps with the first region, when the occlusion ratio is equal to or higher than an occlusion ratio threshold and the confidence for the second region is equal to or higher than a second confidence threshold which is lower than the first confidence threshold.
Kawano (US 9,202,125 B2, hereinafter Kawano) is prior art not applied in the rejection(s) above. Kawano discloses a video processing apparatus includes: a first detection unit configured to detect a moving object from a movie; a second detection unit configured to detect an object having a predetermined shape from the movie; an extraction unit configured to extract a partial region of a region in which the second detection unit has detected the object having the predetermined shape in the movie; and a discrimination unit configured to discriminate whether the object detected by the second detection unit is a certain object depending on a ratio of a size of an overlapping region to a size of an extracted region extracted by the extraction unit, the overlapping region being a region where a region in which the first detection unit has detected the moving object in the movie and the extracted region overlap with each other.
Adachi (US 9,367,734 B2, hereinafter Adachi) is prior art not applied in the rejection(s) above. Adachi discloses a setting apparatus for setting a detection processing region to detect a specific object from an image, the setting apparatus includes: an acquisition unit configured to acquire an input concerning the detection processing region from a user interface; and a setting unit configured to set the detection processing region to detect the specific object in accordance with evaluation information for the input concerning the detection processing region acquired from the user interface.
Sato (US 11,908,197 B2, hereinafter Sato) is prior art not applied in the rejection(s) above. Sato discloses an information processing apparatus that detects an object from an image, includes a determination unit configured to determine a boundary at which a movement of the object between partial regions in the image is estimated, the partial regions each including a plurality of objects, and an estimation unit configured to estimate movement information indicating a number of objects that have passed the boundary determined by the determination unit.
Janssens (US 2023/0014601 A1, hereinafter Janssens) is prior art not applied in the rejection(s) above. Janssens discloses systems and methods for tracking objects though a traffic control system that include a plurality of sensors configured to capture data associated with a traffic location, and a logic device configured to detect one or more objects in the captured data, determine an object location within the captured data, transform each object location to world coordinates associated with one of the plurality of sensors; and track each object location using the world coordinates using prediction and occlusion-based processes.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 JOSHUA CHEN whose telephone number is (703)756-5394. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th: 9:30 am - 4:30pm ET F: 9:30 am - 2:30pm ET.
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, STEPHEN R KOZIOL can be reached at (408)918-7630. 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.
/J. C./Examiner, Art Unit 2665
/Stephen R Koziol/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2665
Prosecution Insights