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 11/18/2025 with respect to 35 U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant merely states that the amendments remove the interpretation under 35 U.S.C. 101. Applicant's arguments amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the amendment overcomes the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101. The examiner disagrees for the reasons provided in the rejection below.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 10-13, filed 11/18/2025, with respect to 35 U.S.C. 102/103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of claims 1-4, 6-16, 18-27 and 29-30 has been withdrawn. The prior art of record does not disclose the combination of combining the delta image with features representing the prior image to generate a combined feature representation of the prior image; processing, using a transform operation, combined feature representation to generate a transformed feature representation of the prior image, wherein the transformed feature representation of the prior image aligns a first feature of a first object of the prior image with a second feature of a second object of the current image.
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.
Claim 6, 18 and 29 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.
Re claim 6 The claim recites “wherein processing, using the transform operation, the delta image and the features representing the prior image to generate the transformed feature representation of the prior image comprises processing, using the transform operation, the combined feature representation of the prior image to generate the transformed feature representation of the prior image.” The examiner notes that “ wherein processing using the transform operation, the delta image and the features representing the prior image to generate the transformed feature representation of the prior image comprises…” Is confusing because this language appears to refer back to the element of claim 1 that was deleted by the above amendment. Further the language “processing, using the transform operation, the combined feature representation of the prior image to generate the transformed feature representation of the prior image” is confusing because it appears to repeat the step of “ processing, using a transform operation, the delta image and features representing the prior image combined feature representation to generate a transformed feature representation of the prior image” it is unclear if this step refers back to the previous step. The examiner suggests canceling this claim as it does not appear to add anything significant and the features of the claim seem to be substantially included in claim 1.
Re claim 18 the claim recites “wherein, to process the delta image and the features representing the prior image to generate the transformed feature representation of the prior image, the at least one processor is configured to :process, using the transform operation, the combined feature representation of the prior image to generate the transformed feature representation of the prior image” The examiner notes that “herein, to process the delta image and the features representing the prior image to generate the transformed feature representation of the prior image…” Is confusing because this language appears to refer back to the element of claim 13 that was deleted by the above amendment. Further the language “process, using the transform operation, the combined feature representation of the prior image to generate the transformed feature representation of the prior image” is confusing because it appears to repeat the step of “ process, using a transform operation, the combined feature representation to generate a transformed feature representation of the prior image,” it is unclear if this step refers back to the previous step. The examiner suggests canceling this claim as it does not appear to add anything significant and the features of the claim seem to be substantially included in claim 13.
Re claim 29 the claim recites “wherein, to process the delta image and the features representing the prior image to generate the transformed feature representation of the prior image, the instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to: process, using the transform operation, the combined feature representation of the prior image to generate the transformed feature representation of the prior image.” The examiner notes that “wherein, to process the delta image and the features representing the prior image to generate the transformed feature representation of the prior image …” Is confusing because this language appears to refer back to the element of claim 25 that was deleted by the above amendment. Further the language process, using the transform operation, the combined feature representation of the prior image to generate the transformed feature representation of the prior image.” is confusing because it appears to repeat the step of “ process, using a transform operation, the combined feature representation to generate a transformed feature representation of the prior image,” it is unclear if this step refers back to the previous step. The examiner suggests canceling this claim as it does not appear to add anything significant and the features of the claim seem to be substantially included in claim 25.
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.
Claim 1-4,6-16,18-27 and 29-32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Re claim 1 The limitation of generating a delta image based on a difference between a current image and a prior image, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, generate a delta image of this claim encompasses the user mentally visualizing an image of the changes.
The limitation of combining the delta image with features representing the prior image to generate a combined feature representation of the prior image; processing, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, combining of this claim encompasses the user mentally combining features of the two images.
The limitation of processing, using a transform operation, the combined feature representation to generate a transformed feature representation of the prior image, wherein the transformed feature representation of the prior image aligns a first feature of a first object of the prior image with a second feature of a second object of the current image, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, transform of this claim encompasses the user mentally transforming the features to mentally align them.
The limitation of combining the transformed feature representation of the prior image with features representing the current image to generate a combined feature representation of the current image, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, combining of this claim encompasses the user mentally combining the features.
The limitation of generating, based on the combined feature representation of the current image, a segmentation mask for the current image, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, generating of this claim encompasses the user mentally visualizing a segmentation mask .
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.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites additional elements – a processor to perform the steps. The processor in both steps is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., a a generic processor performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. 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.
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 to perform steps amounts 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 a cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Re claim 2 The limitation of processing, the prior image to generate the features representing the prior image, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, processing of this claim encompasses the user mentally visualizing features .
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites additional elements – a processor to perform the steps and using a machine learning . The processor and machine learning model in both steps is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., a a generic processor performing a generic computer function) and a generic machine learning model such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component and a generic machine learning model. The machine learning model is a generic machine learning model such that it does little more than limit the step to the general field machine learning 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.
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 to perform steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The machine learning model is a generic machine learning model such that it does little more than limit the step to the general field machine learning. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component and the well known concept of machine learning cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Re claim 3 The limitation of processing, the current image to generate the features representing the current image, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, processing of this claim encompasses the user mentally visualizing features.
The analysis with respect to significantly more and integration into an abstract idea is not significantly changed from the claim which this claim depends.
Re claim 4 The limitation of generating the delta image based on the difference between the current image and the prior image comprises: processing, the prior image to generate intermediate features representing the prior image; processing, the current image to generate intermediate features representing the current image; determining a difference between the intermediate features representing the prior image and the intermediate features representing the current image; and generate the delta image based on the difference between the intermediate features representing the prior image and the intermediate features representing the current image, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, processing the prior image, processing the current image, determining a difference generate a delta image of this claim encompasses the user mentally processing the image to visualize features, mentally determine a difference and mentally visualizing a delta image.
The analysis with respect to significantly more and integration into an abstract idea is not significantly changed from the claim which this claim depends.
Re claim 6 The limitation of combining the delta image with the features representing the prior image to generate a combined feature representation of the prior image., is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, combining of this claim encompasses the user mentally combining the information. The analysis with respect to significantly more and integration into an abstract idea is not significantly changed from the claim which this claim depends.
Re claim 7 The limitation of herein the transform operation includes a convolutional operation performed using at least one convolutional filter, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mathematical concept of convolution. The examiner notes that convolution is a well known mathematical process and the claim merely makes a generalized use in a generalized transformation. The analysis with respect to significantly more and integration into an abstract idea is not significantly changed from the claim which this claim depends.
Re claim 8 The limitation of wherein weights of the at least one convolutional filter are fixed, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mathematical concept of convolution. The examiner notes that convolution with fixed weights is a mathematical process and the claim merely makes a generalized use t in a generalized transformation.
The analysis with respect to significantly more and integration into an abstract idea is not significantly changed from the claim which this claim depends.
Re claim 9 The limitation of w wherein weights of the at least one convolutional filter are modified based on the delta image, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mathematical concept of convolution. The examiner notes that convolution with modified weights is a mathematical process and the claim merely makes use of convolution in a generalized transformation.
The analysis with respect to significantly more and integration into an abstract idea is not significantly changed from the claim which this claim depends.
Re claim 10 The limitation of wherein the at least one convolutional filter includes a deformable convolution, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mathematical concept of deformable convolution. The examiner notes that deformagle convolution is a mathematical process and the claim merely makes use of deformable convolution in a generalized transformation.
The analysis with respect to significantly more and integration into an abstract idea is not significantly changed from the claim which this claim depends.
Re claim 11 The limitation of wherein at least one weight offset of the deformable convolution is modified based on the delta image, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mathematical concept of deformable convolution. The examiner notes that deformable convolution with modified offsets is a mathematical process and the claim merely makes use of deformable convolution in a generalized transformation.
The analysis with respect to significantly more and integration into an abstract idea is not significantly changed from the claim which this claim depends.
Re claim 12 the claim recites the same abstract idea as claim 1.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites additional elements – a processor to perform the steps and a transformer block in the used for transformation. The processor in both steps is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., a a generic processor performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Further a Transformer block is a well known type of neural network component and the claim does little besides generic link the claim to a transformer. 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.
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 to perform steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer componen.. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component a cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
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 to perform steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The transformer block is a well known generic neural network component such that it does little more than limit the step to the general field machine learning. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component and the well known concept of transformers cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Re claim 13
The limitation of generate a delta image based on a difference between a current image and a prior image, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, generate a delta image of this claim encompasses the user mentally visualizing an image of the changes.
The limitation of combine the delta image with features representing the prior image to generate a combined feature representation of the prior image; processing, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, combining of this claim encompasses the user mentally combining features of the two images.
The limitation of process, using a transform operation, the combined feature representation to generate a transformed feature representation of the prior image, wherein the transformed feature representation of the prior image aligns a first feature of a first object of the prior image with a second feature of a second object of the current image, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, transform of this claim encompasses the user mentally transforming the features to mentally align them.
The limitation of generate, based on the combined feature representation of the current image, a segmentation mask for the current image, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, generating of this claim encompasses the user mentally visualizing a segmentation mask.
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.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites additional elements – a processor and a memory storing instructions to perform the steps. The processor and memory in the steps is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., a a generic processor performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. 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.
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 and memory to perform steps amounts 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 a cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Re claim 14 The limitation of processing, the prior image to generate the features representing the prior image, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, processing of this claim encompasses the user mentally visualizing features.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites additional elements – a processor and memory to perform the steps and using a machine learning. The processor memory and machine learning model in the steps is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., a a generic processor performing a generic computer function) and a generic machine learning model such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components and a generic machine learning model. The machine learning model is a generic machine learning model such that it does little more than limit the step to the general field machine learning 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.
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 and memory to perform steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. The machine learning model is a generic machine learning model such that it does little more than limit the step to the general field machine learning. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component and the well known concept of machine learning cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Re claim 15 The limitation of processing, the current image to generate the features representing the current image, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, processing of this claim encompasses the user mentally visualizing features.
The analysis with respect to significantly more and integration into an abstract idea is not significantly changed from the claim which this claim depends.
Re claim 16 The limitation of generating the delta image based on the difference between the current image and the prior image comprises: processing, the prior image to generate intermediate features representing the prior image; processing, the current image to generate intermediate features representing the current image; determining a difference between the intermediate features representing the prior image and the intermediate features representing the current image; and generate the delta image based on the difference between the intermediate features representing the prior image and the intermediate features representing the current image, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, processing the prior image, processing the current image, determining a difference generate a delta image of this claim encompasses the user mentally processing the image to visualize features, mentally determine a difference and mentally visualizing a delta image.
The analysis with respect to significantly more and integration into an abstract idea is not significantly changed from the claim which this claim depends.
Re claim 18 The limitation of combining the delta image with the features representing the prior image to generate a combined feature representation of the prior image., is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, combining of this claim encompasses the user mentally combining the information. The analysis with respect to significantly more and integration into an abstract idea is not significantly changed from the claim which this claim depends.
Re claim 19 The limitation of herein the transform operation includes a convolutional operation performed using at least one convolutional filter, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mathematical concept of convolution. The examiner notes that convolution is a well known mathematical process and the claim merely makes a generalized use in a generalized transformation. The analysis with respect to significantly more and integration into an abstract idea is not significantly changed from the claim which this claim depends.
Re claim 20 The limitation of wherein weights of the at least one convolutional filter are fixed, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mathematical concept of convolution. The examiner notes that convolution with fixed weights is a mathematical process and the claim merely makes a generalized use t in a generalized transformation.
The analysis with respect to significantly more and integration into an abstract idea is not significantly changed from the claim which this claim depends.
Re claim 21 The limitation of w wherein weights of the at least one convolutional filter are modified based on the delta image, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mathematical concept of convolution. The examiner notes that convolution with modified weights is a mathematical process and the claim merely makes use of convolution in a generalized transformation.
The analysis with respect to significantly more and integration into an abstract idea is not significantly changed from the claim which this claim depends.
Re claim 22 The limitation of wherein the at least one convolutional filter includes a deformable convolution, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mathematical concept of deformable convolution. The examiner notes that deformable convolution is a mathematical process and the claim merely makes use of deformable convolution in a generalized transformation.
The analysis with respect to significantly more and integration into an abstract idea is not significantly changed from the claim which this claim depends.
Re claim 23 The limitation of wherein at least one weight offset of the deformable convolution is modified based on the delta image, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mathematical concept of deformable convolution. The examiner notes that deformable convolution with modified offsets is a mathematical process and the claim merely makes use of deformable convolution in a generalized transformation.
The analysis with respect to significantly more and integration into an abstract idea is not significantly changed from the claim which this claim depends.
Re claim 24 the claim recites the same abstract idea as claim 13.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites additional elements – a processor to perform the steps and a transformer block in the used for transformation. The in both steps is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., a a generic processor performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Further a Transformer block is a well known type of neural network component and the claim does little besides generic link the claim to a transformer. 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.
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 to perform steps amounts 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 a cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
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 to perform steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The transformer block is a well known generic neural network component such that it does little more than limit the step to the general field machine learning. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component and the well known concept of transformers cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Re claim 25 The limitation of generate a delta image based on a difference between a current image and a prior image, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, generate a delta image of this claim encompasses the user mentally visualizing an image of the changes.
The limitation of combine the delta image with features representing the prior image to generate a combined feature representation of the prior image; processing, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, combining of this claim encompasses the user mentally combining features of the two images.
The limitation of process, using a transform operation, the combined feature representation to generate a transformed feature representation of the prior image, wherein the transformed feature representation of the prior image aligns a first feature of a first object of the prior image with a second feature of a second object of the current image, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, transform of this claim encompasses the user mentally transforming the features to mentally align them.
The limitation of combining the transformed feature representation of the prior image with features representing the current image to generate a combined feature representation of the current image, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, combining of this claim encompasses the user mentally combining the features.
The limitation of generating, based on the combined feature representation of the current image, a segmentation mask for the current image, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, generating of this claim encompasses the user mentally visualizing a segmentation mask.
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.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites additional elements – A non-transitory computer-readable medium having stored thereon instructions that to perform the steps. The medium in the steps is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., a medium controlling a generic processor to perform a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. 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.
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 computer readable medium to perform steps amounts 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 a cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Re claim 26 The limitation of processing, the prior image to generate the features representing the prior image, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, processing of this claim encompasses the user mentally visualizing features.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites additional elements – A non-transitory computer-readable medium having stored thereon instructions that perform the steps and using a machine learning. The medium and machine learning model in the steps is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., a generic medium performing a generic computer function) and a generic machine learning model such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components and a generic machine learning model. The machine learning model is a generic machine learning model such that it does little more than limit the step to the general field machine learning 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.
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 and memory to perform steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. The machine learning model is a generic machine learning model such that it does little more than limit the step to the general field machine learning. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component and the well known concept of machine learning cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Re claim 27 The limitation of generating the delta image based on the difference between the current image and the prior image comprises: processing, the prior image to generate intermediate features representing the prior image; processing, the current image to generate intermediate features representing the current image; determining a difference between the intermediate features representing the prior image and the intermediate features representing the current image; and generate the delta image based on the difference between the intermediate features representing the prior image and the intermediate features representing the current image, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, processing the prior image, processing the current image, determining a difference generate a delta image of this claim encompasses the user mentally processing the image to visualize features, mentally determine a difference and mentally visualizing a delta image.
The analysis with respect to significantly more and integration into an abstract idea is not significantly changed from the claim which this claim depends.
Re claim 29 The limitation of combining the delta image with the features representing the prior image to generate a combined feature representation of the prior image., is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, combining of this claim encompasses the user mentally combining the information. The analysis with respect to significantly more and integration into an abstract idea is not significantly changed from the claim which this claim depends.
Re claim 30 The limitation of herein the transform operation includes a convolutional operation performed using at least one convolutional filter, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mathematical concept of convolution. The examiner notes that convolution is a well known mathematical process and the claim merely makes a generalized use in a generalized transformation. The analysis with respect to significantly more and integration into an abstract idea is not significantly changed from the claim which this claim depends.
Re claim 31 The limitation of wherein weights of the at least one convolutional filter are fixed, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mathematical concept of convolution. The examiner notes that convolution with fixed weights is a mathematical process and the claim merely makes a generalized use t in a generalized transformation.
Re claim 32 The limitation of wherein combining the delta image with the features representing the prior image comprises concatenating the delta image and the features representing the prior image, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, transform of this claim encompasses the user mentally concatenating the delta image and the features.
Re claim 33 The limitation of wherein combining the transformed feature representation of the prior image with the features representing the current image comprises concatenating the transformed feature representation of the prior image and the features representing the current image, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, transform of this claim encompasses the user mentally concatenating the features of the two images.
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 SEAN T MOTSINGER whose telephone number is (571)270-1237. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-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, Chineyere Wills-Burns can be reached at (571) 272-9752. 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.
/SEAN T MOTSINGER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2673