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
The status of claims 1-5 are:
Claims 1-5 were pending as of the Non-Final Rejection mailed 09/11/2025.
Claims 1 and 4-5 are amended as of the remarks and amendments received 11/11/2025.
Claims 2-3 remain as originally presented as of the remarks and amendments received 11/11/2025.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. The claim limitations of claim 3 were incorporated into independent claim 1 as of the amendments received 11/11/2025, and therefore, claim 3 does not further limit claim 1. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. In the analysis below, the method of independent claim 4 is considered representative of independent claims 1 and 5. Each of the independent claims 1 and 4-5 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 claims 1 and 4-5 are directed to inputting an image into a classifier to determine a capturing condition under which the image was generated based on the output of the classifier; selecting a super-resolution model corresponding to a capturing condition under which an image was generated, among a plurality of super-resolution models for improving resolution of the image, the plurality of super-resolution models corresponding to different capturing conditions; and generating a high-resolution image having a higher resolution than the image by inputting the image into the selected super-resolution model. An individual can determine a capturing condition under which the image was generated, select a model corresponding to a capturing condition under which an image was generated among a plurality of super resolution models. The generation of the high-resolution image is insignificant extra-solution activity. 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).
Additional elements
Independent claim 1 claims a processor. Independent claim 4 does not have any additional elements. Independent claim 5 claims a non-transitory recording medium.
Step 2A, Prong 2 Analysis
The above-identified elements do not integrate the judicial into a practical application nor do they suggest an improvement.
The additional elements of a processor and a non-transitory recording medium amounts to merely using generic computer hardware or components as a tool to perform the claimed mental process.
Using a general purpose computer to apply a judicial exception does not qualify as a particular machine and therefore, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application (See MPEP 2106.05(b)). Furthermore, 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 another technology or technical field, 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)).
Further, the act of acquiring data is mere data gathering which amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity (See MPEP 2106.05(g)). 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.
Regarding independent claims 1 and 4-5, as noted above, the additional elements 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).
Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves and other technology. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation, and mere implementation on a generic computer does not add significantly more to the claims. 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 the foregoing reasons, independent claims 1 and 4-5 do not recite eligible subject matter under 35 USC 101.
Claim 2 claims wherein the image includes condition information indicating the capturing condition under which the image was generated, and the processor selects the super-resolution model corresponding to the capturing condition indicated by the condition information among the plurality of super-resolution models. The features of claim 2 are directed to the mental process since they do not preclude the mentally analysis as recited in claim 1. Accordingly, claim 2 does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 3 claims wherein the image includes condition information indicating the capturing condition under which the image was generated, and the processor selects the super-resolution model corresponding to the capturing condition indicated by the condition information among the plurality of super-resolution models. The features of claim 3 are directed to the mental process since they do not preclude the mentally analysis as recited in claim 1. Accordingly, claim 3 does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kong et al. (WO 2022160980 A1 using the translation provided herein, hereinafter “Kong”).
Regarding claim 1, Kong discloses a resolution converter comprising: a processor (Kong Page 3: “In a third aspect, the present application provides a terminal device, including: a memory and a processor, where the memory is used for storing a computer program; the processor is used for executing the method described in any one of the above-mentioned first aspect when the computer program is invoked”) configured to:
input an image into a classifier to determine a capturing condition under which the image was generated based on the output of the classifier (Kong Page 3: “Cut the low-resolution image into multiple sub-images; for each sub-image, determine the complexity category of the sub-image according to the classification model”);
select a super-resolution model corresponding to a capturing condition under which an image was generated (Kong Page 3: “Cut the low-resolution image into multiple sub-images; for each sub-image, determine the complexity category of the sub-image according to the classification model, and input the sub-image into the super-resolution network model corresponding to the complexity category in the multiple super-resolution network models process”), among a plurality of super-resolution models for improving resolution (Kong Page 3: “and output the reconstructed image of the sub-image; stitch the reconstructed images of multiple sub-images to obtain a high-resolution image corresponding to the low-resolution image”), the plurality of super-resolution models corresponding to different capturing conditions (Kong Page 3: “Cut the low-resolution image into multiple sub-images; for each sub-image, determine the complexity category of the sub-image according to the classification model, and input the sub-image into the super-resolution network model corresponding to the complexity category in the multiple super-resolution network models process”), and
generate a high-resolution image having a higher resolution than the image by inputting the image into the selected super-resolution model (Kong Page 3: “and output the reconstructed image of the sub-image; stitch the reconstructed images of multiple sub-images to obtain a high-resolution image corresponding to the low-resolution image”).
Regarding claim 4, it is rejected under the same analysis as claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 5, it is rejected under the same analysis as claim 1 above along with Kong’s disclosure of a non-transitory recording medium (Kong Page 3: “In a fourth aspect, the present application provides a computer-readable storage medium on which a computer program is stored, and when the computer program is executed by a processor, implements the method described in any one of the foregoing first aspects”).
Regarding claim 2, Kong discloses the converter, wherein the image includes condition information indicating the capturing condition under which the image was generated (Kong Page 3: “Cut the low-resolution image into multiple sub-images; for each sub-image, determine the complexity category of the sub-image according to the classification model”), and
the processor selects the super-resolution model corresponding to the capturing condition indicated by the condition information among the plurality of super-resolution models (Kong Page 3: “and input the sub-image into the super-resolution network model corresponding to the complexity category in the multiple super-resolution network models process”).
Regarding claim 3, Kong discloses the converter, wherein the processor selects the super- resolution model corresponding to the capturing condition under which the image was generated (Kong Page 3: “Cut the low-resolution image into multiple sub-images; for each sub-image, determine the complexity category of the sub-image according to the classification model and input the sub-image into the super-resolution network model corresponding to the complexity category in the multiple super-resolution network models process”), by inputting the image into a classifier for classification into the capturing conditions corresponding to the plurality of super-resolution models (Kong Page 3: “Cut the low-resolution image into multiple sub-images; for each sub-image, determine the complexity category of the sub-image according to the classification model”).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/11/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 101
Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant’s arguments made on page 4 of Applicant’s arguments and remarks that the independent claims are integrated into a practical application. The added limitation is another step that could be performed mentally (classifying the image based on the capturing condition of the image) and does not integrate the invention into a practical application. The classifier and super-resolution models are recited at such a high level that they are considered generic computer hardware, and the improvement or practical application that the invention is addressing is not apparent from the claim language. As such, the 101 rejections of the claims are maintained.
Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1)
Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant’s arguments made on pages 5-6 of Applicant’s arguments and remarks that Kong does not disclose the amendments. As mapped in claim 3 of the Non-Final Rejection and now mapped in the independent claims, Kong discloses inputting an image into a classifier to determine a capturing condition under which the image was generated (Kong Page 3: “Cut the low-resolution image into multiple sub-images; for each sub-image, determine the complexity category of the sub-image according to the classification model and input the sub-image into the super-resolution network model corresponding to the complexity category in the multiple super-resolution network models process”), by inputting the image into a classifier for classification into the capturing conditions corresponding to the plurality of super-resolution models (Kong Page 3: “Cut the low-resolution image into multiple sub-images; for each sub-image, determine the complexity category of the sub-image according to the classification model”). The model of Kong is within the BRI of classifier and the complexity category of the sub-images, and therefore the images, is within the BRI of a capturing condition. As such, the 102 rejections of the claims are maintained.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Otsuka (U.S. Patent Publication No 2023/0128106) discloses a super-resolution processing apparatus that classifies parts of the images into categories that are used for the super-resolution processing (Otsuka [0098]).
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any 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 AIDAN KEUP whose telephone number is (703)756-4578. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00-4:00.
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, Emily Terrell can be reached at (571) 270-3717. 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.
/AIDAN KEUP/ Examiner, Art Unit 2666
/EMILY C TERRELL/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2666