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 .
Applicant’s amendments dated 7/8/26 are hereby entered.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claims 1-20 are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite a mental process that can be performed by a human being and/or recite a method of organizing human activity and/or claim the rules of a game.
In regard to Claims 1, 9, and 17, the following limitations can be performed as a mental process by a human being in terms of claiming collecting data, analyzing that data, and providing outputs based on that analysis which has been held by the CAFC to be an abstract idea in decisions such as, e.g., Electric Power Group, University of Florida Research Foundation, and Yousician v Ubisoft (non-precedential); and/or recite a method of organizing human activity in terms of claiming the teaching/training/evaluation of a human subject’s which has been identified by MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II) as being a method of organizing human activity; and/or claiming the rules of a game which has been identified by the CAFC as being an abstract ides in decisions such as, e.g., Savvy Dog Systems v. Pennsylvania Coin (non-precedential; 2023-1073; 3/21/24), in terms of the Applicant claiming:
A method for human […] interaction based on a story scene […], the method comprising:
[…]
acquiring [images] of a physical environment […];
transmitting the [images];
[…];
receiving the [images];
[segmenting the images] into a background region and a foreground character region […] the foreground character region including an actual human character associated with a virtual human character of a reasoning task corresponding to the story scene, including segmenting the foreground character region into a face region and a non-face region of the actual human character […];
replacing the background region in the [image] with an augmented [visual] region of a [visual] environment of the story scene, the [visual] background region including a scene picture of the story scene, the scene picture of the story scene being a [visual] scene different from a representation of the physical environment in the background region of the [image];
replacing the foreground character region in the [image] with [a visual] character region of the [visual] environment of the story scene, including replacing the non-face region of the foreground character region based on a character material of the [visual] human character, wherein the [visual] character region includes a representation of the actual human character wearing an [visual] costume corresponding to the character material of the [visual] human character;
fusing the [visual] background region and the [visual] character region of the [visual] environment into [images] of the [visual] environment […];
transmitting the [images]; and
[…]
displaying the [images];
changing a display content of the [augmented visual image] in response to an interaction operation performed by the actual human character; and
completing the reasoning task corresponding to the story scene based on the changed display content.
In regard to the dependent claims, they also claim an abstract idea to the extent that they merely claim further limitations that likewise could be performed as a mental process by a human being and/or recite a method of organizing human activity and/or the rules of a game.
Furthermore, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because to the extent that additional elements are claimed either alone or in combination such as, e.g., embodying Applicant’s abstract idea as computer code stored in a computer readable medium that is then executed on a computer processor, employing a video camera, employing augmented reality, segmenting a video stream, a terminal, a server, employing FCN, fusing video streams on a frame level one-to-one relationship, these are merely claimed to add insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (e.g., data gathering), to embody the abstract idea on a general purpose computer, and/or do no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. In this regard, see MPEP 2106.04(d)(I) in regard to “courts have also identified limitations that did not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application…”
Furthermore, the claims do not include additional elements that taken individually, and also taken as an ordered combination, are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because to the extent that, e.g., embodying Applicant’s abstract idea as computer code stored in a computer readable medium that is then executed on a computer processor, employing a video camera, employing augmented reality, segmenting a video stream, a terminal, a server, employing FCN, fusing video streams on a frame level one-to-one relationship, these are well-understood, routine, and conventional elements and are claimed for the well-understood, routine, and conventional functions of collecting and processing data and/or providing an analysis/outputs based on that processing. To the extent that an apparatus is claimed as an additional element said apparatus fails to qualify as a “particular machine” to the extent that it is claimed generally, merely implements the steps of Applicant’s claimed method, and is claimed merely for purposes of extra-solution activity or field of use. See MPEP 2106.05(b). As evidence that these additional elements are well-understood, routine, and conventional, Applicant’s specification discloses the support for these elements in a manner that indicates that the additional elements are sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars of such additional elements to satisfy 35 U.S.C. § 112(a). See, e.g., F3 in Applicant’s PGPUB and text regarding same; e.g., p64 in regard to employing a video camera to capture a video stream; e.g., p372 in regard to employing augmented reality; e.g., p286 in regard to segmenting a video stream; e.g., F13 and p318 and 321 regarding employing an FCN; and, e.g., p299 regarding fusing video streams on a frame level one-to-one relationship.
As further evidence that employing FCN to do pixel-by-pixel semantic segmentation of images was well-understood, routine, and conventional at the time of filing see, e.g., p26 in PGPUB US 20220406039 A1 by Hoerferlin et al.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 USC 101 to the extent that Claims 1, 9, and 16 are directed to a human organism performing certain actions (“completing a reasoning task…content”). See MPEP 2105.
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues on page 14 of its Remarks in regard to the rejection made under 35 USC 101:
PNG
media_image1.png
280
628
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive. Capturing images with a camera does not in and of itself add “significantly more” to an abstract idea. See, e.g., the CAFC’s opinion in Yu v. Apple in that regard. Transmitting images over a network does not in and of itself add “significantly more” to an abstract idea. See, e.g., the CAFC’s opinion in Ultramercial in that regard. And Applicant discloses so little detail (one sentence in one paragraph) in its specification in regard to how to fuse images into a video stream that such a technology must have been well-understood, routine, and conventional at the time of filing and, therefore, does not add “significantly” more to Applicant’s abstract idea. Likewise, and for the similar reasons stated supra, the addition of using FCN likewise does not render “significantly more”.
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 extension fee 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 Mike Grant whose telephone number is 571-270-1545. The Examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Friday between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., except on the first Friday of each bi-week.
If attempts to reach the Examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner's Supervisory Primary Examiner, Peter Vasat can be reached at 571-270-7625. 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.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.
/MICHAEL C GRANT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715
