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 .
DETAILED ACTION
RESPONSE TO ARGUMENTS
112f INTERPRETATION
The examiner acknowledges the amendment of claims 1-2 filed 12/12/2025. After carefully reviewing applicant amendments, 35 USC 112f guidance and applicant arguments, amendments are sufficient to overcome 112(f) interpretation.
35 USC 101 REJECTION
The examiner acknowledges the amendment of claims 1-26 filed 12/12/2025. After carefully reviewing applicant amendments, 35 USC 101 guidance and claim limitations, examiner respectfully disagrees.
Applicant submits that the claims gradient computations/corrections and reliability generation cannot practically be performed in the human mind, and that the claims provide a technological improvement in image matching robustness/accuracy.
In response, examiner submits in Step 2A, Prong 1 (judicial exception) the claim recites operations that are mathematical calculations and data analysis on image data e.g. generating directional pixel-value changes, generating gradient directions, performing gradient direction correction and generating a reliability metric based on corrected gradient direction. Examiner submits these limitations are mathematical concepts and/or mental process category of abstract ideas. These abstract ideas are evaluating and transforming information using mathematical relationships.
In Step 2A, Prong 2, the claim recites (Integration into practical application) the claim do not recite a particular machine improvement in the claim language itself beyond using generic computing components (processor/memory) to carry out calculations. The claimed “reliability” is an output of the calculations; the claims do not recite additional, specific limitations that meaningfully limit the judicial exception (e.g. a particular improvement in a camera sensor, optics, or a concrete downstream control loop tied to a specific device operation. Accordingly, the abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application.
In Step 2B, the claims additional elements (e.g. processors and memory) are generic computer components performing their ordinary functions, and the claim as a whole does not add significantly more than the judicial exception.
In view of above arguments, examiner submits Alice rejection is sufficient and is respectfully maintained.
PRIOR ART REJECTION
Applicant submits new amended independent claim 1 contains the “gradient direction correction unit” that corrects the gradient direction such that, when a local region is point symmetrically moved, the gradient becomes the same value as a gradient of another local region”.
In response, examiner submits Lakemond discloses the correction feature. Examiner submits scope of applicant amendment is if the region is point symmetrically moved (i.e. 180 degrees), the gradient value becomes the same. Specifically, [0012, 0075, 0077] of Lakemond discloses opposing gradient samples are converted to co directional double angle gradient vectors (because doubling angles collapses the 180 degree difference). Examiner submits double angle map: 2(angle + 180 degrees) = 2(angle) + 360 degrees = 2(angle). So after “correction” via double angle representation, the point symmetric/opposing case becomes the same value in the representation used for combining/comparison. Examiner submits the two are equivalent.
Chuang discloses two-image gradient pipeline where that correction is applied before and within the comparison ([0068-0070]).
Applicant submits Lakemond does not correct gradient direction; Lakemond merely converts to double angle vectors (a mathematical transform), and does not meet claims “point symmetrically moved” -> same corrected value requirement.
In response, examiner submits Lakemond’s stated technical point is that conventional averaging cancels opposing gradients (thin-line structures), and its method prevents cancellation by making opposing gradients co-directional ([0004-0006, 0074-0085]). The same corrected value after point symmetric move is basically the 180-degree ambiguity collapse. Lakemond discloses when converting back: dominant orientation is 180 ambiguous after converting the compound vector back into single angle domain ([0089-0091]). Examiner submits 180 degree ambiguity means direction sign is intentionally discarded i.e. the “corrected direction” treats the angle and angle + 180 degrees as the same orientation value ([0089-0091]).
Applicant submits Chuang does not disclose the required a reliability generation unit configured to generate reliability of matching between the first image and the second image based on the corrected gradient direction.
In response, Chuang computes SAD (sum of absolute differences) between local blocks of Image 1 and motion calibrated image 2. The sums of absolute differences can reflect whether characteristics are close or not in the local area. ([0073]) [0074] discloses using a threshold and weighting factor to adjust the map based on the SAD magnitude.
Applicant submits Lakemond is only about gradients within a single image or target image (dominant gradient orientation), not ‘standard image’ selection for first/second images or two image matching so it can not supply the missing claim limitations.
In response, Lakemond discloses each gradient sample is determined by a difference between (i) the pixel value at the target pixel, and (ii) a pixel value of a neighboring pixel positioned in a respective direction ([0010, 0059-0062]). Chuang also discloses two images (image 1 and motion calibrated image 2) and performs gradient operations on both ([0067-0069])
In view of above arguments, examiner submits Alice rejection is sufficient and is respectfully maintained.
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 1-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to as ineligible under subject eligibility test. In the Subject Matter Eligibility Test for Products and Processes (Federal Register, Vol. 79, No. 241, dated Tuesday, December 16, 2014, page 74621), The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional device elements, which are recited at a high level of generality, provide conventional computer functions that do not add meaningful limits to practicing the abstract idea.
Claims 1-2 & 24-26
Step 1
This step inquires “is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter?” Yes,
Claim 24-25 – “Method” is a process.
Claims 1-2 & 26 - “Devices” or “Non-Transitory CRM” are machines.
Step 2A - Prong 1
This step inquires “does the claim recite an abstract idea, law or natural phenomenon”. This claim appears to directed to an abstract idea.
The limitation of “set a standard image including a pixel of interest in the first image or the second image to generate at least a first pixel value change in a first direction and a second pixel value change in a second direction for each local region of the standard image, generate a gradient direction of the local region based on the first pixel value change and the second pixel value change, correct the gradient direction such that, when the local region is point-symmetrically moved, a gradient of said local region becomes the same value as a gradient of another local region different from said local region, and generate the reliability based on the corrected gradient direction”, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind (e.g. mathematical concepts, mental processes or certain methods of organizing human activity) but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “processor or memory” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “processor or memory” language, “setting, generating, correcting” in the context of this claim encompasses covers performance of the limitation in the mind (e.g. mathematical concepts, mental processes or certain methods of organizing human activity).
STEP 2A – PRONG 1 - CONCLUSION
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A - Prong 2
This step inquires “does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application”. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites two additional element – using a “processor or memory” to perform “setting, generating, correcting” steps. The “processor or memory” are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor) “set a standard image including a pixel of interest in the first image or the second image to generate at least a first pixel value change in a first direction and a second pixel value change in a second direction for each local region of the standard image, generate a gradient direction of the local region based on the first pixel value change and the second pixel value change, correct the gradient direction such that, when the local region is point-symmetrically moved, a gradient of said local region becomes the same value as a gradient of another local region different from said local region, and generate the reliability based on the corrected gradient direction” such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
STEP 2A – PRONG 2 - CONCLUSION
Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B
The critical inquiry here is does the claim recite additional elements that amount to “significantly more” than the judicial exception? The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a “processor or memory” to perform “setting, generating, correcting” steps amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent Claims
As to claim 3, this claim is directed to generic computer components (“processor”), mental process (“set orthogonal directions; compute first/second differential values; derive first/second pixel value changes (pure calculations)”) and insignificant extra-solution activity (“selecting axes/directions for a “local region””). Thus, this claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or constitute significantly more than the abstract.
As to claim 4, this claim is directed to mental process (“applying Sobel/Prewitt filters to compute derivates”) and insignificant extra-solution activity (“choosing which edge kernel to apply”). Thus, this claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or constitute significantly more than the abstract.
As to claim 5, this claim is directed to mental process (“computing central/intermediate difference gradients”) and insignificant extra-solution activity (“implementation detail/data prep”). Thus, this claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or constitute significantly more than the abstract.
As to claim 6, this claim is directed to generic computer components (“processor”) and mental process (“calculating gradient direction from pixel value changes”) . Thus, this claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or constitute significantly more than the abstract.
As to claim 7, this claim is directed to mental process (“form a vector with first/second components from changes”). Thus, this claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or constitute significantly more than the abstract.
As to claim 8, this claim is directed to generic computer components (“processor”), mental process (“compute sum/maximum/average/sum-of-squares/sqrt as weights; compute weighted variance/weighted standard deviation in the gradient direction; make reliability increase as those stats increase”) and insignificant extra-solution activity (“choosing which statistics to use”). Thus, this claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or constitute significantly more than the abstract.
As to claim 9, this claim is directed to mental process (“same weight choices as claim 8; compute weighted average composite vector length and make reliability increase as its value decreases”) and insignificant extra-solution activity (“picking monotonic mapping”). Thus, this claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or constitute significantly more than the abstract.
As to claim 10, this claim is directed to generic computer components (“processor”), mental process (“enforce point-symmetry equivalence on gradient values”). Thus, this claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or constitute significantly more than the abstract.
As to claim 11, this claim is directed to generic computer components (“processor”), mental process (“add/subtract 180 degrees to map direction into a usable range”) and insignificant extra-solution activity (“defining a “usable range””). Thus, this claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or constitute significantly more than the abstract.
As to claim 12, this claim is directed to generic computer components (“processor”), mental process (“narrowing the range based on ratio of first/second pixel value changes (e.g. using Gy/Gx)”) and insignificant extra-solution activity (“parameter choice for the range”). Thus, this claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or constitute significantly more than the abstract.
As to claim 13, this claim is directed to generic computer components (“processor”), mental process (“correcting direction based on the signs (positive/negative) of the two changes”). Thus, this claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or constitute significantly more than the abstract.
As to claim 14, this claim is directed to generic computer components (“processor”), mental process (“doubling the angle of the gradient direction”). Thus, this claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or constitute significantly more than the abstract.
As to claim 15, this claim is directed to generic computer components (“processor”), mental process (“compute variance/standard deviation of gradient directions; map reliability higher as dispersion increases”) and insignificant extra-solution activity (“selecting that monotonic rule”). Thus, this claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or constitute significantly more than the abstract.
As to claim 16, this claim is directed to generic computer components (“processor”), mental process (“compute average composite vector length and make reliability higher as that decreases“) and insignificant extra-solution activity (“choosing monotonic rule”). Thus, this claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or constitute significantly more than the abstract.
As to claim 17, this claim is directed to generic computer components (“processor”), mental process (“post-compute correction of a numeric reliability value“) and insignificant extra-solution activity (“post solution tweaking/tuning of calculated metric”). Thus, this claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or constitute significantly more than the abstract.
As to claim 18, this claim is directed to generic computer components (“processor”), mental process (“detect whether the entire standard image gradient direction is close to an error-tolerance direction; increasing reliability”) and insignificant extra-solution activity (“defining “error tolerance direction”/thresholds (tuning parameters)”). Thus, this claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or constitute significantly more than the abstract.
As to claim 19, this claim is directed to generic computer components (“processor”), mental process (“generate reliability based on gradient strength”) and insignificant extra-solution activity (“weighting choice”). Thus, this claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or constitute significantly more than the abstract.
As to claim 20, this claim is directed to generic computer components (“image processing device”), mental process (“optical flow”) and insignificant extra-solution activity (“field of use (“between images captured at different times” and “post-solution context (declaring it’s “matching/optical flow”)”). Thus, this claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or constitute significantly more than the abstract.
As to claim 21, this claim is directed to generic computer components (“imaging device; measurement (processor) to compute distance from reliability;”), mental process (“compute distance from reliability”) and insignificant extra-solution activity (“post-solution activity of adjusting focus based on the computed distance”). Thus, this claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or constitute significantly more than the abstract.
As to claim 22, this claim is directed to insignificant extra-solution activity (“specifying sensor layout”). Thus, this claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or constitute significantly more than the abstract.
As to claim 23, this claim is directed to generic computer components (“first/second imaging elements and optical systems”) and insignificant extra-solution activity (“field of use configuration”). Thus, this claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or constitute significantly more than the abstract.
CLAIM REJECTIONS - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1, 3, 6-7, 10, 14, 24 & 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
Chuang et al. (U.S. Publication 2014/0218550) in view of Lakemond (U.S. Publication 2020/0202558)
As to claims 1, 24 & 26, Chuang discloses an image processing device that generates reliability of matching between a first image and a second image (S510, Fig. 5 & [0052] discloses capturing a first and second images with different focal lengths, wherein the first focal length is focused on at least one main object. S540, Fig. 2 & [0054] discloses the first gradients and the second gradients are compared and a first parameter map is generated according to the comparison results…A blending is produced…an output image is produced), the image processing device comprising: at least one processor or circuit configured to function as: to set a standard image including a pixel of interest in the first image or the second image to generate at least a first pixel value change in a first direction and a second pixel value change in a second direction for each local region of the standard image, (S540, Fig. 2 & [0054] discloses perform a gradient operation on each pixel of the first image to produce a plurality of first gradients, and perform the gradient operation on each pixel of the motion calibrated second image to produce a plurality of second gradient)
to generate a gradient direction of the local region based on the first pixel value change and the second pixel value change (S540, Fig. 2 & [0054] discloses perform a gradient operation on each pixel of the first image to produce a plurality of first gradients, and perform the gradient operation on each pixel of the motion calibrated second image to produce a plurality of second gradient),( Examiner submits scope of applicant amendment is if the region is point symmetrically moved (i.e. 180 degrees), the gradient value becomes the same. Specifically, [0012, 0075, 0077] of Lakemond discloses opposing gradient samples are converted to co directional double angle gradient vectors (because doubling angles collapses the 180 degree difference). Examiner submits double angle map: 2(angle + 180 degrees) = 2(angle) + 360 degrees = 2(angle). So after “correction” via double angle representation, the point symmetric/opposing case becomes the same value in the representation used for combining/comparison. Examiner submits the two are equivalent.)
Chuang is silent to correct the gradient direction in accordance with the gradient direction such that, when the local region is point-symmetrically moved, a gradient of said local region becomes the same value as a gradient of another local region different from said local region.
However, Lakemond’s Abstract and [0007-0030] discloses to correct the gradient direction in accordance with the gradient direction such that, when the local region is point-symmetrically moved, a gradient of said local region becomes the same value as a gradient of another local region different from said local region. (See Abstract, Fig. 4 for example converting the gradient samples into double-angle gradient vectors; combining the double angle gradient vectors; and determining a dominant gradient orientation for the target region)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify Chuang’s disclosure to include the above limitations for the following reason: Applying Lakemond’s double angle correction before Chuang’s gradient comparison prevents cancellation and maps directions into a consistent usable range, yielding more stable per-pixel comparisons.
Chuang in view of Lakemond current modification is silent to generate the reliability based on the gradient direction corrected by the gradient direction correction unit.
However, Lakemond’s discloses to generate the reliability based on the gradient direction corrected by the gradient direction correction unit.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify Chuang in view of Lakemond current modification disclosure to include the above limitations in order to for the following reason: Chuang’s parameter map already functions as a per-pixel weight/reliability surface for blending. Lakemond discloses once directions are corrected, the magnitude of the compound/dominant vector encodes orientation coherence. A POSITA would substitute Chuang’s map values with a function of this magnitude to generate reliability based on the corrected direction.
As to claim 3, Chuang in view of Lakemond discloses everything as disclosed in claim 1. In addition, Chuang discloses wherein at least two directions of the first direction along a pixel array and the second direction orthogonal to the first direction for the local region, calculates a first differential value obtained by performing differentiation processing in the first direction and a second differential value obtained by performing differentiation processing in the second direction, and generates the first pixel value change based on the first differential value, and generates the second pixel value change based on the second differential value. (S540, Fig. 5 & [0054] discloses performing a gradient operation on each pixel of the first image to produce a plurality of first gradients, and perform the gradient operation on each pixel of the motion calibrated second image to produce a plurality of second gradients.)
As to claim 6, Chuang in view of Lakemond discloses everything as disclosed in claim 1. In addition, Lakemond discloses wherein calculates the gradient direction based on the first pixel value change and the second pixel value change. (601-604, Fig. 4 & [0093] discloses converting the gradient samples into double-angle vectors. 604, Fig. 4 discloses determining a dominant gradient orientation.)
As to claim 7, Chuang in view of Lakemond discloses everything as disclosed in claim 1. In addition, Lakemond discloses wherein calculates the gradient direction with a vector having a first component and a second component calculated from the first pixel value change and the second pixel value change. ([0090-0094] discloses compound gradient vector g’2 having x and y components…converted to a dominant gradient vector.)
As to claim 10, Chuang in view of Lakemond discloses everything as disclosed in claim 1. In addition, Lakemond discloses wherein performs correction so that a gradient of the local region has the same value when the local region is point-symmetrically moved. (Fig. 5 & [0096-0099] discloses opposing gradient samples…are converted to co-directional double angle…so their contributions do not cancel)
As to claim 14, Chuang in view of Lakemond discloses everything as disclosed in claim 1. In addition, Lakemond discloses wherein performs correction so that an angle of the gradient direction is doubled. ([0016, 0091] discloses representing the gradient samples in polar coordinates and multiplying their angular components by two…then dividing by two)
CONCLUSION
No prior art has been found for claims 2, 4-5, 8-9, 11-13 & 15-23 in their current form.
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.
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 Stephen P Coleman whose telephone number is (571)270-5931. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8AM-5PM.
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, Andrew Moyer can be reached at (571) 272-9523. 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.
Stephen P. Coleman
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2675
/STEPHEN P COLEMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2675