DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 1/27/2026, with respect to the rejection of claims 1, and 8-9 (and their respective deponent claims), under 35 U.S.C 101, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Regarding independent claims Applicant argues that “Applicant respectfully submits that claim 1 is not directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea under the first prong of Step 2A. With respect to the first prong of Step 2A, the Office asserts that claim 1 is directed to mental processes.
Regarding mental processes, the Federal Circuit held that "claims do not recite a mental process when they do not contain limitations that can practically be performed in the human mind, for instance when the human mind is not equipped to perform the claim limitations." CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1372, 1375-76 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (distinguishing Research Corp. Techs. Inc. v. Microsoft Corp., 627 F.3d 859 (Fed. Cir. 2010)). Applicant respectfully submits that a human mind cannot practically recognize a first action of the person based on a distance between the person and the first object being equal to or less than a predetermined length; measure, based on a recognition result of the first action, a time period for which the person has continued the first action; recognize an unidentified action occurring between the first action and a second action related to the second object; and calculate, during the unidentified action, a first distance between the person and the first object and a second distance between the person and the second object and add a duration of the unidentified action to the time period of the first action in a case where the second distance is greater than the first distance.” (please see Remarks, page 9 and page 10, first two lines).
Examiner respectfully disagrees, as previously explained and now further explained below that these steps are processes found by the courts to be abstract ideas in that related to “mental processes grouping” more specifically, “collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis,” where said steps are recited at a high level of generality such that they could practically be performed in the human mind and/or with pen and paper. For instance, a person looking at the image can detect a worker in the image and worker position with respect to first and second object in the image and from the image the person can recognize the action of the worker if worker in the image pushing a cart and/or picking up objects then by looking at subsequent images person can estimate the time period in which the pushing and/or pick up action continued or a person looking at the images can also figure out if the worker is talking to someone or standing i.e., divergence from an action and/or unidentified action and further by looking at images when the worker not performing the planned action (pushing cart and/or picking up object), the person can calculate the distance when the action is not recognized for instance from the image a person can calculate if the worker is closer to first object and farther away from the second object and when the person noticed that the worker’s distance meets certain threshold adding a duration of the unidentified action to the time period of the first action. Hence, from the above analysis it can be seen that the claim limitations are simple mental process and the person looking the images can perform all the steps mentally and/or with the pen and paper. Thus, these steps are an abstract idea in the “mental process” grouping. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Applicant further argues that “Applicant respectfully submits that claim 1 is patent eligible under Prong Two of the revised Step 2A of the Alice test. In Prong Two, examiners evaluate whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of that exception. If the recited exception is integrated into a practical application of the exception, then the claim is eligible at Prong Two of revised Step 2A. Even if it is assumed claim 1 recites a judicial exception, which Applicant does not concede, Applicant respectfully submits that the claim is patent eligible under prong two of the revised Step 2A of the Alice test because the claim integrates the alleged judicial exception into a practical application. MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2) provides that in "Prong Two, examiners evaluate whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application of that exception. If the additional elements in the claim integrate the recited exception into a practical application of the exception, then the claim is not directed to the judicial exception." The claim as a whole integrates the alleged exception into a practical application, as evidenced by the Applicant's specification as originally filed ("Specification"). One way to demonstrate such integration is when the claimed invention improves the functioning of a computer or improves another technology or technical field." MPEP § 2106.04(d)(1). The Specification describes difficulties of accurately determining an operation time period of an action and ascertaining a deviation from an operation plan through image analysis. See Specification at paragraphs [0003] and [0005]. Claim 1, when read in light of the Specification, solves the problem and provides certain advantages such as highly accurately: recognition of actions on various objects in a plurality of images, determination of an operation time period for which a person has continued an action, and acquisition of deviations from an operation plan, which results in improved image processing technologies and accuracy of behavior measurement. See id., at paragraphs [0006], [0010], [0028], [0074], and [0100]. Accordingly, for at least the foregoing reasons, claim 1 is not directed to a judicial exception to patentability and is therefore patent-eligible under 35 USC§ 101.” (please see Remarks, page 10 and page 11).
Examiner respectfully disagrees, First of all, Examiner looked at paragraphs [0006], [0010], [0028], [0074], and [0100], as pointed out by the Applicant and found these paragraphs generally recites same steps as being claimed i.e., nowhere these paragraphs integrate the judicial exception into practical application or further elaborate any specific technology i.e., any AI component or image analysis. Further, as being explained above the currently pending amended claims are processes found by the courts to be abstract ideas in that related to “mental processes grouping” more specifically, “collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis,” where said steps are recited at a high level of generality such that they could practically be performed in the human mind and/or with pen and paper. The Judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Treating claim 1 as a whole, the claim limitations do not show inventive concept in applying the judicial exception. Thus, claims 1 and 8-9, as a whole is not significantly more than the abstract idea itself and is ineligible.
Applicants arguments with respect to 35 U.S.C 103 rejection and Double patenting rejection have been fully considered and they are persuasive in view of amendments. Hence, said rejections have been withdrawn.
Applicants arguments with respect to 35 U.S.C 112(b) rejection have been fully considered and they are persuasive partially, since not all the claims for said rejection has been addressed in the response and again explained below.
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 3-6, 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.
In claim 3, line 3, recites “the action should be continued”, here the use of “should” in the claim is ambiguous and leave the scope of the claim uncertain and/or unclear. Hence, rendering claim 3, indefinite. Examiner suggests Applicant to amend the claim to recite “the action to be continued”, to overcome the rejection.
In claim 4, line 9, recites “should be continued”, here the use of “should” in the claim is ambiguous and leave the scope of the claim uncertain and/or unclear. Hence, rendering claim 9, indefinite. Examiner suggests Applicant to amend the claim to recite “to be continued”, to overcome the rejection. Claims 5-6, are rejected based on their dependency on the rejected claim and inherent the same deficiency.
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.
Regarding claim 1:
Claim 1 is directed to idea of itself (abstract idea) without significantly more for the following reason(s):
Step 1: Claim 1 recites “an information processing apparatus, comprising at least one processor, the at least one processor carrying out: a detection process of detecting a person, a first object, and a second object based on a plurality of images included in sensor information; a recognition process of recognizing a first action of the person based on a distance between the person and the first object being equal to or less than a predetermined length; a measurement process of measuring, based on a recognition result of the action, a time period for which the person has continued the first action; and a generation process of generating information indicating a degree of divergence from an action plan based on (i) the time period which has been measured and for which the first action has been continued and (ii) a time period which is included in the action plan planned for the first action and for which the first action is to be continued, the action plan being related to the first action of the person which has been recognized, wherein the recognition process is configured to recognize an unidentified action occurring between the first action and a second action related to the second object, and wherein the measurement process measures the time period of the first action by: calculating, during the unidentified action, a first distance between the person and the first object and a second distance between the person and the second object; and adding a duration of the unidentified action to the time period of the first action in a case where the second distance is greater than the first distance.”. Thus, the claim is directed to an apparatus, which is one of the statutory categories of the invention.
Step 2A prong 1, the claimed detection process, recognition process, measurement process, and generation process are directed to abstract idea for the reason that these steps are processes found by the courts to be abstract ideas in that related to “mental processes grouping” more specifically, “collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis,” where said steps are recited at a high level of generality such that they could practically be performed in the human mind and/or with pen and paper, Electric Power Group v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353-54, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1741-42 (Fed. Cir. 2016);. That is, nothing in the claim element precludes the steps from practically being performed in the mind and/or with a pen and paper, For instance, a person looking at the image can detect a worker in the image and worker position with respect to first and second object in the image and from the image the person can recognize the action of the worker if worker in the image pushing a cart and/or picking up objects then by looking at subsequent images person can estimate the time period in which the pushing and/or pick up action continued or a person looking at the images can also figure out if the worker is talking to someone or standing i.e., divergence from an action and/or unidentified action and further by looking at images when the worker not performing the planned action (pushing cart and/or picking up object), the person can calculate the distance when the action is not recognized for instance from the image a person can calculate if the worker is closer to first object and farther away from the second object and when the person noticed that the worker’s distance meets certain threshold adding a duration of the unidentified action to the time period of the first action. Hence, from the above analysis it can be seen that the claim limitations are simple mental process and the person looking the images can perform all the steps mentally and/or with the pen and paper. Thus, these steps are an abstract idea in the “mental process” grouping. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A prong 2, The Judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Treating claim 1 as a whole, the claim limitations do not show inventive concept in applying the judicial exception. From the claim scope, the claim fail to address any improvement because merely detecting person and object, recognizing relevance between person and object, and measuring time period for which the person has continued action and generating information indicating divergence from action plan based on some timing is not enough to tie the claim towards the technical improvement and can be performed in human mind and/or with the pen and paper as being explained above. Thus, claim 1 as a whole is not significantly more than the abstract idea itself and is ineligible.
Step 2B, The claim include additional elements “processor”, and sensor, simply appending well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, e.g., a claim to an abstract idea requiring no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the industry, as discussed in Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 225, 110 USPQ2d at 1984 (see MPEP § 2106.05(d)). Hence, the additional elements do not integrate the exception into a practical application and do not amount to claiming significantly more than the recited judicial exception. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 2.
Claim 2, is rejected under 35 U.S.C 101 because the claimed invention is directed to idea of itself (abstract idea) without significantly more. The claim recites “The information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein: the at least one processor further carries out a display process of displaying the information indicating the degree of divergence”.
The claim include additional elements “processor further carries out a display process” simply appending well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, e.g., a claim to an abstract idea requiring no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the industry, as discussed in Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 225, 110 USPQ2d at 1984 (see MPEP § 2106.05(d)). Hence, the additional elements do not integrate the exception into a practical application and do not amount to claiming significantly more than the recited judicial exception. Furthermore, a claim to “collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis,” where the data analysis steps are recited at a high level of generality such that they could practically be performed in the human mind, Electric Power Group v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353-54, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1741-42 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Regarding claim 3.
Claim 3, rejected under 35 U.S.C 101 because the claimed invention is directed to idea of itself (abstract idea) without significantly more, nothing in the claims element precludes the steps from practically being performed in the mind. Furthermore, analysis of claim 2 also applicable to claim 3 as said claim recites similar process/steps.
Regarding claim 4.
Claim 4, is rejected under 35 U.S.C 101 because the claimed invention is directed to idea of itself (abstract idea) without significantly more. The claim recites “The information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein: in the recognition process, the at least one processor recognizes a plurality of actions: in the measurement process, the at least one processor measures a time period for which each of the plurality of actions has been continued; and in the generation process, the at least one processor generates information indicating the degree of divergence based on (i) the time period which has been measured and for which each of the plurality of actions has been continued and (ii) a time period which is included in an action plan planned for all of the plurality of actions and for which each of the plurality of actions should be continued.”. As can be seen from claim language nothing in the claims element precludes the steps from practically being performed in the mind, claim 4, include additional elements “processor”, simply appending well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, e.g., a claim to an abstract idea requiring no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the industry, as discussed in Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 225, 110 USPQ2d at 1984 (see MPEP § 2106.05(d)). Hence, the additional elements does not integrate the exception into a practical application and do not amount to claiming significantly more than the recited judicial exception. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 5.
Claim 5, is rejected under 35 U.S.C 101 because the claimed invention is directed to idea of itself (abstract idea) without significantly more. The claim recites “The information processing apparatus according to claim 4, wherein: in the generation process, the at least one processor generates, for each of the plurality of actions, the information indicating the degree of divergence”. As can be seen from claim language nothing in the claims element precludes the steps from practically being performed in the mind, claim 5, include additional elements “processor”, simply appending well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, e.g., a claim to an abstract idea requiring no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the industry, as discussed in Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 225, 110 USPQ2d at 1984 (see MPEP § 2106.05(d)). Hence, the additional elements do not integrate the exception into a practical application and do not amount to claiming significantly more than the recited judicial exception. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 6.
Claim 6, is rejected under 35 U.S.C 101 because the claimed invention is directed to idea of itself (abstract idea) without significantly more. The claim recites “The information processing apparatus according to claim 4, wherein: each of the plurality of actions which have been recognized in the recognition process is an operation included in any of a plurality of processes; and in the generation process, the at least one processor generates, for each of the plurality of processes, the information indicating the degree of divergence”. As can be seen from claim language nothing in the claims element precludes the steps from practically being performed in the mind, claim 6, include additional elements “processor”, simply appending well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, e.g., a claim to an abstract idea requiring no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the industry, as discussed in Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 225, 110 USPQ2d at 1984 (see MPEP § 2106.05(d)). Hence, the additional elements do not integrate the exception into a practical application and do not amount to claiming significantly more than the recited judicial exception. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 7.
Claim 7, is rejected under 35 U.S.C 101 because the claimed invention is directed to idea of itself (abstract idea) without significantly more. The claim recites “The information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein: in the detection process, the at least one processor detects a plurality of persons; in the recognition process, the at least one processor recognizes an action for each of the persons; in the measurement process, the at least one processor measures, for each of the plurality of persons, a time period for which the action has been continued; and in the generation process, the at least one processor generates, for each of the plurality of persons, information indicating the degree of divergence”. As can be seen from claim language nothing in the claims element precludes the steps from practically being performed in the mind, claim 7, include additional elements “processor”, simply appending well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, e.g., a claim to an abstract idea requiring no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the industry, as discussed in Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 225, 110 USPQ2d at 1984 (see MPEP § 2106.05(d)). Hence, the additional elements do not integrate the exception into a practical application and do not amount to claiming significantly more than the recited judicial exception. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 8, please see the analysis of claim 1.
Regarding claim 9.
Claim 9, is rejected under 35 U.S.C 101 because the claimed invention is directed to idea of itself (abstract idea) without significantly more. For claim 9, please see the analysis of claim 1. Furthermore, claim 9, include additional elements
“non-transitory computer-readable medium” and “computer” to carry out process, simply appending well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, e.g., a claim to an abstract idea requiring no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the industry, as discussed in Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 225, 110 USPQ2d at 1984 (see MPEP § 2106.05(d)). Hence, the additional elements do not integrate the exception into a practical application and do not amount to claiming significantly more than the recited judicial exception. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 10.
Claim 10, is rejected under 35 U.S.C 101 because the claimed invention is directed to idea of itself (abstract idea) without significantly more. The claim recites “wherein the detection process detects the person, the first object, and the second object using a machine learning model”. As can be seen from claim language nothing in the claims element precludes the steps from practically being performed in the mind, claim 6, include additional elements “a machine learning model”, simply appending well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, e.g., a claim to an abstract idea requiring no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the industry, as discussed in Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 225, 110 USPQ2d at 1984 (see MPEP § 2106.05(d)). Hence, the additional elements do not integrate the exception into a practical application and do not amount to claiming significantly more than the recited judicial exception. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 11, objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
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 SYED Z HAIDER whose telephone number is (571)270-5169. The examiner can normally be reached MONDAY-FRIDAY 9-5:30 EST.
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, SAM K Ahn can be reached at 571-272-3044. 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.
/SYED HAIDER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2633