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 .
Examiner’s Interview
The Examiner called the Applicant’s representative, Joshua Dean ((202)293-7060) on January 13, 2026, and tried to expedite the prosecution. However, no response was received.
Response to Amendment
Applicant's amendment filed on December 29, 2025 has been entered. Claims 1 – 5 and 7 – 10 have been amended. No claims have been canceled. No claims have been added. Claims 1 – 10 are still pending in this application, with claims 1, 7 and 10 being independent.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on December 29, 2025 have been fully considered.
Regarding Claim Rejections under 35 USC § 101
The Applicant alleges: “
At page 3 of the Office Action, the Examiner asserted that claim features in this application "can be interpreted as a human can, by observing a target image and learned from reference images about attitude parameters (or orientation angles) of an object, estimate attitude parameters (or orientation angles) for an object in the target image". See also the similar interpretations throughout the rejection. But such interpretation is clearly in excess of a broadest reasonable interpretation as described at least by MIPEP 2111 which clearly indicates that "broadest reasonable interpretation" (BRI) does not mean broadest possible interpretation but instead one that is, among other things, consistent with the specification - which this rejection's interpretation clearly is not. More specifically, MPEP 2111 notes that:
The broadest reasonable interpretation does not mean the broadest possible interpretation. Rather, the meaning given to a claim term must be consistent with the ordinary and customary meaning of the term (unless the term has been given a special definition in the specification), and must be consistent with the use of the claim term in the specification and drawings. Further, the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims must be consistent with the interpretation that those skilled in the art would reach....
And so, since MPEP 2106(11) indicates that the BRI of a claim is to be established as a boundary to Step 2A Prong 1 analyses, and MIPEP 2111 indicates that BRI does not mean broadest possible interpretation but instead one that is, inter alia, consistent with the specification, it is clear that the rejection's interpretation of those claim features, such as at page 3 of the Office Action, is inconsistent with the specification, and therefore does not meet the
requirement for a BRI of the claim and therefore exceeded the bounds of the Step 2A Prong 1 analyses, because nothing in the Applicant's specification suggests that the claim features should be interpreted as the rejection's asserted interpretation of a human can, by observing a target image and learned from reference images about attitude parameters (or orientation angles) of an object, estimate attitude parameters (or orientation angles) for an object in the target image" or any of the other assertions throughout the rejection on this Step 2A Prong 1 point. Nothing in the specification suggests that the claim features are to be interpreted as performed by a human mind as alleged by the rejection.
As such, the rejection, by interpreting the claim features in a manner inconsistent with the Applicant's specification, clearly exceeded the BRI of the claims (by the criteria of MPEP 2111), and thereby exceeded the bounds of Step 2A Prong 1 (by the criteria of MPEP 2106(11), and should therefore be withdrawn.
Examiner’s response:
The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Since the claim(s) amendment changes the scope of the claim, the § 101 rejection is based on new analysis.
As the Examiner pointed out in § 101 rejection below, the basic idea for the claimed limitation is to compute and determine an image similarity between a target image and a teacher image, which is an abstract idea.
As the Examiner pointed out in § 101 rejection below, in Step 2A Prong 1 test, the claimed limitations “estimate the attitude parameters …”, “compute an image similarity”, and “determine whether the image similarity is less than or equal to a predetermined threshold value” are mathematical concepts or mental processes. The rest are additional elements. However, they are not a meaningful limitations that alone can amount to significantly more than an abstract idea.
The Applicant further alleges: “
Also, the rejection here is inconsistent with the USPTO's abstract idea guidance Subject Matter Eligibility Examples: Abstract Ideas Example 39 since the claims in that Example, shown in that footnote here, could just as easily be interpreted as "a human can..." like the present rejection's interpretation, and yet, the USPTO's instructed analysis for such claim is that, at Step 2A Prong 1, the claim is to be found to not recite an abstract idea, even the mental processes one of the USPTO's abstract idea subgroupings.
And so, since arbitrary and capricious action cannot be lawfully upheld, this rejection should be withdrawn as inconsistent, and therefore arbitrary and capricious, in view of that still-pending USPTO guidance Example 39.”
Examiner’s response:
In Example 39, there is no judicial exception in Step 2A prong 1 test, therefore, there is no abstract idea.
In a contrast, the claimed limitations of claim 1 in instant Application have judicial exception in Step 2A prong 1 test, and there is no significantly more in Step 2A prong 2 and step 2B test. Thus, it is still an abstract idea without significantly more.
The Applicant still further alleges: “
Further, this rejection has, in principle, the same material errors as made by the USPTO Appeal Board in Ex Parte Desjardins, which is precedential and therefore binding on the Examiner.
That is, in this application, the claims clearly satisfy the simple criteria of MPEP 2106.04(d)(1), as the specification describes a technical problem and solution, and the claims reflect that solution. More exactly, MPEP 2106.04(d)(1) notes:
…
In that light, see at least originally-filed specification paragraphs [0002]-[0021] and other related descriptions indicating that there was "not... any technology that can detect the degradation of the accuracy of estimating the attitude in actual operations" ([0016]) and, by the claimed features, "it is possible to detect a degradation of estimation accuracy in object attitude estimation in which machine learning is used" ([0021]).
But nothing in this rejection seems to indicate any meaningful consideration of those MIPEP 2106.04(d)(1) criteria, much less that the specification here satisfies those criteria in favor of finding the claims patent eligible under 35 USC 101 as, like those MPEP 2106.04(d)(1) criteria, the specification here clearly describes a technical problem and solution and the claims reflect that solution. Instead, the Examiner asserted other reasons that conclude with assertions such as "are all part of the abstract idea", "generic", "not...meaningful...", "WURC", and "purely conventional". See pages 4-7 of the Office Action.
Of course, at least on the facts here, the claims clearly cannot be justly asserted to be ''purely conventional'' or the like at least since the Office could not even produce an anticipation rejection of any of the pending claims. Nonetheless the rejection's reasoning fails to account for the present satisfaction of the MPEP 2106.04(d)(1) criteria and therefore has, in principle, the same material error as made by the Board as explained in the precedential Ex Parte Desjardins.
See the March 2025 Appeal Decision in US 16/319,040 (of Ex Parte Desjardins), in which the Board equivalently stated, that "[a]ny improvements embodied by the claims are merely improvements to the abstract idea":
In the May 2025 Rehearing Request in US 16/319,040 leading to Ex Parte Desjardins, it was requested that the Board reconsider and withdraw their 35 usci101 rejection as the same- above criteria of MIPEP 2106.04(d)(1) had been met - the specification described a technical problem and solution and the claims reflected that solution:
…
And yet, a fundamental flaw in both the Boards' reasoning and the reasoning of the present rejection lies in "the improvement is to the abstract idea" rationale, as instead the criteria is simply that of MIPEP 2106.04(d)(1), which is met here in favor of finding the claims patent eligible under 35 USC 101. The specification describes a technical problem and a technical solution to that problem and the claims reflect that technical solution.
That is, as stressed both in the Rehearing Request of May 5, 2025 (which was denied by the PTAB) and the Appeal Review Panel Decision of September 26, 2025, the simple test set out in MIPEP 2106.04(d)(1) - does the specification describe an improvement and do the claims reflect that improvement - is sufficient regardless of whether the improvement is "to the abstract idea" or the like. Or more exactly, see the following, with highlights:
And from at least the ARP Decision's page 8 reference to Enfish and that claims "directed to an improvement to computer functionality" (which is understood to be exactly what the PTA]3 and Rehearing Denial Decisions above were calling the "[a] claim for a new abstract idea is still an abstract idea" and "any improvements embodiments by the claims are merely improvements to the abstract idea") is the kind of improvement that should be found to be patent eligible under 35 USC 101
But regardless of Enfish as in that ALRP, the criteria of MPEP 2106.04(d)(1) as above are met also in this application. The specification in this application describes an improvement and the claims reflect that improvement. The rejection here does not indicate disagreement - which shows the rejection to be clearly improper as highlighted above in the precedential Ex Parte
Desjardius which, as being precedential is binding on this Examiner and should be taken as reasons to withdraw the rejection.
And so, it is respectfully requested that the 35 USC 101 rejection be reconsidered and withdrawn in this application for at least the above-reasons.
Examiner’s response:
The Examiner again respectfully disagrees.
The claimed limitations merely claimed to compute and determine an image similarity between a target image and a teacher image. The claimed invention does not provide improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field.
Secondly, as indicated by MPEP 2106.04(d)(1): “
if the specification sets forth an improvement in technology, the claim must be evaluated to ensure that the claim itself reflects the disclosed improvement.”
However, the claim itself does not reflect the disclosed improvement.
Thus, the claimed limitations are still considered as an abstract idea without a significantly more.
The Applicant still further alleges: “
Further, the rejection's Step 2B will be discussed respectfully, at least in view of the above ARP Decision's page 9 note (emphasized above with a star) as "without adequate explanation".
For example, see Ex Parte Hannun, a USPTO informative decision, in which a primary and two supervisory Examiner's assertions in an Examiner's Answer about alleged state of the art at Step 2B, was rejected (in just a single paragraph) by the PTA3 as insufficient factual evidence, or in other words, "without adequate explanation", which could be considered striking in view of the nearly dozen pages of alleged state of the art asserted by that Examiner's Answer.
And so, respectfully, the Step 2B of the pending rejection should be similarly withdrawn as at least the pending claims seem to be, pending the Examiner's further search and consideration, allowable, at least by the criteria of 35 USC 102 and 103, which, although perhaps irrelevant to the Step 2A Prong 1 inquiry of whether a claim feature is directed to an abstract idea, seems at least informative, if not dispositive, to the Step 2B inquiry in this application and these claims. See similarly that above-referenced paragraph from the PTAB in Ex Parte Hannun highlighted below:
…”
Examiner’s response:
The Examiner clearly explained in step 2B analysis that:
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception such as improvements to another technology or technical field, or other meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment.
Moreover, the claim language that may be separate from the abstract idea (i.e., additional elements) include computer processors, computer-readable storage media.
The additional element (e.g. an image processing device; a memory; a processor; an attitude estimation model; a computer-readable recording medium; generating model; storing and extracting data) simply appending well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception (WURC) - see MPEP 2106.05(d) and 2106.07(a)III.
Thus, the recited generic additional elements (e.g. an image processing device; a memory; a processor; an attitude estimation model; a computer-readable recording medium; generating model; storing and extracting data) perform no more than their basic computer function. Generic computer-implementation of a method is not a meaningful limitation that alone can amount to significantly more than an abstract idea. Moreover, when viewed as a whole with such additional element considered as an ordered combination, claims modified by adding a generic memory are nothing more than a purely conventional computerized implementation of an idea in the general field of computer processing and do not provide significantly more than an abstract idea.
Consequently, the identified additional elements taken into consideration individually or in combination fails to amount of significantly more than the abstract idea above.
The Applicant further request that the Examiner make a suggestion for claim amendment.
If the Applicant appends the claim 4 (and claim 3) into independent claim(s). The § 101 issue may overcome.
Regarding Claim Rejections under 35 USC § 103
The Applicant’s argument (pages 19 – 20) is persuasive. The claims amendment overcomes the prior art of the record. After a further search, no reference is found to teach, or in a combination to teach, the claimed limitations of the independent claims.
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 and 5 – 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e. an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Regarding claims 1, 7 and 9:
Step 1:
Claims 1, 7 and 9 are directed towards a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter which is/are statutory subject matter.
Step 2A:
Prong 1:
Claims 1, 7 and 9 are directed an idea for determining similarities between two images which is an abstract idea.
Consideration of the claimed elements:
Regarding claims 1, 7 and 9:
The claims in the instant application include:
generate an attitude estimation model by learning using one or more teacher data, including a teacher image in which an object has been taken, and attitude parameters representing an attitude of the object in a target image in which the object whose attitude is to be estimated has been taken;
store the one or more teacher data used in learning of the attitude estimation model to a teacher data memory;
estimate the attitude parameters, using the attitude estimation model;
extract from the teacher data memory the teacher image whose attitude similarity, which is a first degree of similarity between the estimated attitude parameters and the attitude parameters related to the teacher image, is the largest among one or more teacher images included in the one or more teacher data;
compute an image similarity, which is a second degree of similarity between the target image and the acquired teacher image; and
determine whether the computed image similarity is less than or equal to a predetermined threshold value.
Regarding “estimate attitude parameters, using the attitude estimation model”, it can be interpreted as using an algorithm to estimate attitude parameters, thus categorized as mathematical concepts or mental processes.
Regarding “compute an image similarity, which is a second degree of similarity between the target image and the acquired teacher image”, it can be interpreted as using an algorithm to compute similarity between the target image and the acquired teacher image. The claimed limitation can be broadly read as a concept performed by a human mind, thus categorized as mathematical concepts or mental processes.
Regarding “determine whether the image similarity is less than or equal to a predetermined threshold value”, it can be interpreted as to compare the image similarity and a predetermined threshold value to determine whether the image similarity is less than or equal to a predetermined threshold value. The claimed limitation can be broadly read as a concept performed by a human mind, thus categorized as mathematical concepts or mental processes.
As analyzed above, the above claimed limitations are mental processes.
Prong 2:
The claims include additional elements of
an image processing device; a memory; a processor; an attitude estimation model; a computer-readable recording medium.
generate an attitude estimation model by learning using one or more teacher data, including a teacher image in which an object has been taken, and attitude parameters representing an attitude of the object in a target image in which the object whose attitude is to be estimated has been taken;
store the one or more teacher data used in learning of the attitude estimation model to a teacher data memory;
extract from the teacher data memory the teacher image whose attitude similarity, which is a first degree of similarity between the estimated attitude parameters and the attitude parameters related to the teacher image, is the largest among one or more teacher images included in the one or more teacher data.
Regarding “an image processing device; a memory; a processor; an attitude estimation model; a computer-readable recording medium”, they are considered as to use a general computational hardware/software. It is considered as “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f).
Regarding “generate an attitude estimation model by learning using one or more teacher data, including a teacher image in which an object has been taken, and attitude parameters representing an attitude of the object in a target image in which the object whose attitude is to be estimated has been taken”, they are considered as generally linking - the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use – see MPEP 2106.05(h).
Regarding “store the one or more teacher data used in learning of the attitude estimation model to a teacher data memory”, they are considered as of data storing of adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception - see MPEP 2106.05(g).
Regarding “extract from the teacher data memory the teacher image whose attitude similarity, which is a first degree of similarity between the estimated attitude parameters and the attitude parameters related to the teacher image, is the largest among one or more teacher images included in the one or more teacher data”, they are considered as data gathering of adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception - see MPEP 2106.05(g).
They are mere instructions to implement an abstract idea uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Moreover, the claim limitations that are not indicative of integration into a practical application.
Thus, the recited generic additional element (e.g., an image processing device; a memory; a processor; an attitude estimation model; a computer-readable recording medium; generating model; storing and extracting data) perform no more than their basic computer function. Generic computer-implementation of a method is not a meaningful limitation that alone can amount to significantly more than an abstract idea. Moreover, when viewed as a whole with such additional element considered as an ordered combination, claims modified by adding a computational algorithm, a generic memory and processor are nothing more than a purely conventional computerized implementation of an idea in the general field of computer processing and do not provide significantly more than an abstract idea.
Accordingly, the claims are directed to an idea of itself, and therefore not patent eligible.
Step 2B:
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception such as improvements to another technology or technical field, or other meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment.
Moreover, the claim language that may be separate from the abstract idea (i.e., additional elements) include computer processors, computer-readable storage media.
The additional element (e.g. an image processing device; a memory; a processor; an attitude estimation model; a computer-readable recording medium; generating model; storing and extracting data) simply appending well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception (WURC) - see MPEP 2106.05(d) and 2106.07(a)III.
Thus, the recited generic additional elements (e.g. an image processing device; a memory; a processor; an attitude estimation model; a computer-readable recording medium; generating model; storing and extracting data) perform no more than their basic computer function. Generic computer-implementation of a method is not a meaningful limitation that alone can amount to significantly more than an abstract idea. Moreover, when viewed as a whole with such additional element considered as an ordered combination, claims modified by adding a generic memory are nothing more than a purely conventional computerized implementation of an idea in the general field of computer processing and do not provide significantly more than an abstract idea.
Consequently, the identified additional elements taken into consideration individually or in combination fails to amount of significantly more than the abstract idea above.
Regarding claims 2 – 3, 5 – 6, 8 and 10, the rejection is based on the same rationale described for claims 1, 7 and 9 because the claims include/inherit the same/similar type of problematic limitation(s) as claims 1, 7 and 9, wherein limitations regarding additional aspect for process; "compute ... ", “acquire …”, “generate …”, “output …” and “are expressed …”, is/are of sufficient breadth that it would be substantially directed to or reasonably interpreted as a part of the “mental processes” as the abstract idea (similar to claim as stated above). It is noted that further additional limitation is merely generic/conventional computer component/steps to implement the abstract idea, which is, individually or in combination, not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Therefore, the claimed invention as a whole is directed to an ineligible subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
The Applicant’s argument (pages 19 – 20) is persuasive. The claims amendment overcomes the prior art of the record. After a further search, no reference is found to teach, or in a combination to teach, the claimed limitations of the independent 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 QIAN YANG whose telephone number is (571)270-7239. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday 8am-6pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Andrew Bee can be reached on 571-270-5183. 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.
/QIAN YANG/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2677