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 .
Claim Status
Preliminary amendments have been made, claims 1-7 and 9 have been amended. Claims 1-9 are pending.
Priority
This application is a National Stage Entry of PCT/JP2021/030462 filed on August 19, 2021.
Information Disclosure Statement
The IDS filed 02/01/24 is considered.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The current abstract contains the language listed above, please correct.
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
Claim Rejections – 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
35 U.S.C. 101 requires that a claimed invention must fall within one of the four eligible categories of invention (i.e. process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter) and must not be directed to subject matter encompassing a judicially recognized exception as interpreted by the courts. MPEP 2106. Three categories of subject matter are found to be judicially recognized exceptions to 35 U.S.C. § 101 (i.e. patent ineligible) (1) laws of nature, (2) physical phenomena, and (3) abstract ideas. MPEP 2106(II). To be patent-eligible, a claim directed to a judicial exception must as whole be integrated into a practical application or directed to significantly more than the exception itself (MPEP 2106). Hence, the claim must describe a process or product that applies the exception in a meaningful way, such that it is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
Claims 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea) without integration into a practical application or recitation of significantly more. In the analysis below, the device of independent claim 1 is considered representative of independent claims 1, 8, and 9 since all of the independent claims recite identical steps despite being directed to different statutory matter, any claim with differing limitations will be addressed individually. Furthermore, each of independent claims 1, 8, and 9 are directed to one of the four statutory categories of eligible subject matter; thus, the claims pass Step 1 of the Subject Matter Eligibility Test (See flowchart in MPEP 2106).
Step 2A, Prong 1 Analysis
Independent claim 1 is directed to computing a plane projection transformation matrix of a first image and a second image, the first image being obtained by capturing a flat surface of an object with a first imaging device, the second image being obtained by capturing the flat surface with a second imaging device; acquire a second figure that is obtained by transforming a first figure on a basis of the plane projection transformation matrix, the first figure being virtually drawn on the first image in a predetermined direction and in a predetermined shape; and generating a tilt index representing a tilt in an imaging direction of the second imaging device with respect to the first imaging device on a basis of the second figure.
The steps of computing, generating, and acquiring are stated as mathematical concepts. “A claim that recites a mathematical calculation, when the claim is given its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, will be considered as falling within the "mathematical concepts" grouping” (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) I.C.). The above steps are considered to fall under such a grouping. As such, the description in independent claim 1 is an abstract idea – namely, a mathematical formula. Accordingly, the analysis under prong one of step 2A of the Subject Matter Eligibility Test does not result in a conclusion of eligibility (See flowchart in MPEP 2106). Additionally the step of determining is seen as a mental process, since one could mentally determine if a JPEG contains any falsified areas based on the result of the mathematical search.
Additional elements
Independent claim 1 further recites the additional element of a memory containing program instructions; a processor coupled to the memory, generating a display item including the tilt index; and display the display item in a superimposed manner on the second image. Claim 9 additionally recites a non-transitory computer readable medium.
Step 2A, prong 2 analysis
The above-identified additional elements do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The additional elements of generating a display item including the tilt index; and display the display item in a superimposed manner on the second image can be defined as insignificant extra-solution activity. Such insignificant extra solution activity does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Each of the other additional elements (processor, memory, and a non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 9) amounts to merely using a computer as a tool to perform the claimed mental process. Implementing an abstract idea on a computer does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Moreover, the additional elements of the claims do not recite an improvement in the functioning of a computer or other technology or technical field, the claimed steps are not performed using a particular machine, the claimed steps do not effect a transformation, and the claims do not apply the judicial exception in any meaningful way beyond generically linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment (See MPEP 2106.04(d)). Therefore, the analysis under prong two of step 2A of the Subject Matter Eligibility Test does not result in a conclusion of eligibility (See flowchart in MPEP 2106).
Step 2B
Finally, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
The additional elements of generating a display item including the tilt index; and display the display item in a superimposed manner on the second image can be defined as insignificant extra-solution activity. Such insignificant extra solution activity does not constitute significantly more than the claimed mental process (See MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Each of the other additional (processor, memory, and a non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 9) are generic computer features which perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine, and conventional and do not amount to more than implementing the abstract idea with a computerized system. Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea).
Accordingly, the analysis under step 2B of the Subject Matter Eligibility Test does not result in a conclusion of eligibility (See flowchart in MPEP 2106).
For all of the foregoing reasons, independent claim 1 does not recite eligible subject matter under 35 USC 101.
Dependent claims 2-7 are dependent on independent claim 1 and therefore include all of the limitations of claim 1. Therefore, claims 2-7 recite the same abstract idea of a mathematical concepts.
Claim 2 recites in the computing the plane projection transformation matrix, compute a rigid transformation matrix of the first image and the second image, and compute a plane projection transformation matrix of the first image and an image obtained by transforming the second image on a basis of the rigid transformation matrix. This claim recites more mathematical concepts of computing matrices for the generation for the transformation matrix, therefore is directed to the abstract idea of mathematical formulas. Accordingly, the claim does not recite any additional limitations that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 3 recites in the generating the tilt index, generate a figure obtained by exaggerating projection distortion of the second figure as the tilt index. This claim recites more mathematical concepts defining how the second figure is adjusted (by exaggeration) to be obtained. Accordingly, the claim does not recite any additional limitations that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 4 recites in the generating the tilt index, for each of four sides of the second figure, compare a length of a side with a length of an opposing side, and generate, as the tilt index, a figure obtained by coloring a side having a length that is same as a length of an opposing side with a first color, coloring a side having a length that is shorter than a length of an opposing side with a second color, and coloring a side having a length that is longer than a length of an opposing side with a third color. This claim does not recite more mathematical concepts, coloring of sides by length does not fall under mathematical formula, hence the content of claim 4 is an additional element. However, altering the colors of the side does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or constitute as significantly more. Accordingly, the claim does not recite any additional limitations that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 5 recites acquire a third figure that is obtained by transforming the first figure on a basis of the rigid transformation matrix; and in the generating the display item, generate the display item that further includes the third figure as a non-tilt index. The third figure acquiring is a mathematical concept of affecting the first figure using a transform matrix. The step of generating the display item acts as an additional element, however it can be defined as extra solution activity. Such insignificant extra solution activity does not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application or constitute significantly more than the claimed mental process (See MPEP 2106.05(g)). Accordingly, the claim does not recite any additional limitations that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 6 recites wherein acquire an amount of a rotational shift and an amount of a positional shift of the third figure with respect to the first figure; and in the generating the display item, generate the display item that further includes an arrow index representing the amount of the rotational shift and the amount of the positional shift by a direction and a length of an arrow. Both these steps can be defined as additional elements. However, the obtaining of the different kinds of shift can be defined as data gathering and the generating the display item can be defined as extra solution activity. Both data gathering and extra solution activity does not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application or constitute significantly more than the claimed mental process (See MPEP 2106.05(g)). Accordingly, the claim does not recite any additional limitations that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 7 recites in the generating the display item, generate the display item that further includes a text index representing the amount of the rotational shift and the amount of the positional shift in text. Generating the display item can be defined as extra solution activity. Such extra solution activity does not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application or constitute significantly more than the claimed mental process (See MPEP 2106.05(g)). Accordingly, the claim does not recite any additional limitations that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-7 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 and the standing 101 issues are corrected.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
TAKADA et al. (US 20220076399 A1) teaches calculating a transformation matrix between two images to guide camera pose correction
FUJIKAWA et al. (US 20140015957 A) teaches calculating a tilt of a camera and using that tilt to correct the cameras pose relative to a reference camera
Uchiyama (US 20050069172 A1) teaches superimposing an index for determining camera pose.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEFANO A DARDANO whose telephone number is (703)756-4543. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 11:00 - 7:00.
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, Greg Morse can be reached at (571) 272-3838. 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.
/STEFANO ANTHONY DARDANO/Examiner, Art Unit 2663
/GREGORY A MORSE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2698
Prosecution Insights