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
This communication is in response to the application filed 06 November 2023. Claims 1-10 are pending. The rejections are as stated below.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statements (IDS) submitted in this application on 06 November 2023 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the IDS is being considered by the examiner. The initialed copy of the1449 is enclosed herewith.
CLAIM INTERPRETATION
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“a first image processing unit …”;
“a second image processing unit …”;
“a third image processing unit …”;
“a fourth image processing unit …”;
“a fifth image processing unit …”;
“a first estimation unit …”;
“a second estimation unit …”; and “a distribution unit”. In claims 1-8.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Examiner notes that Applicant’s specification is silent as to providing structure support for these limitations. Claims directed to a system/apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function, In re Danly 263 F.2d 844, 847, 120 USPQ 582, 531 (CCPA 1959). Applicant is respectfully requested to identify sufficient structure that perform the claim functions.
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 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. In particular, claims are directed to a judicial exception (abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claim 1 (exemplary) recites a series of steps for processing information in each of a plurality of preset processing periods.
The claim is directed to a machine, which is a statutory category of invention.
The claim is then analyzed to determine whether it is directed to a judicial exception.
Independent apparatus claims 1, recites the limitations of generating first information by executing first image processing on an image acquired in each preset processing period; generating second information by executing second image processing using the first information in the processing period; estimating whether or not the second image processing is able to be completed in a current processing period based on time needed for the first image processing and the first information; and distributing, if it is estimated that the second image processing is not able to be completed in the current processing period, the first information to be used in remaining second image processing to the second image processing unit and a third image processing unit that is provided separately from the second image processing unit and executes the second image processing, in order to execute the remaining second image processing in a preset number of processing periods after the current processing period.
These limitations, as drafted, are processes that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation covers steps directed to organizing human activity, namely a fundamental economic practice of managing resource allocation over time periods). Under the Guidance, certain methods of organizing human activity, including a fundamental economic practice or commercial interactions, represent an abstract idea. See Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52.
In addition to raising the abstract recitation of “‘organizing human activity,’ the claims recite “mental processes”. Claim 1, includes steps that reasonably can be performed by a human (pen and paper). For example, a human can perform the steps recited above in claim 1, by estimating a completion time, task duration and distributing work load. Under the Guidance, “mental processes—concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion)” also constitute an abstract idea. See Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52. Accordingly, the above recitations, and the claim as a whole, recite an abstract idea involving mental processes.
Therefore, it is clear that exemplary independent claim 1 recites limitations, under the Revised Guidance, fall under the category of abstract ideas related to “certain methods of organizing human activity” and/or “mental processes” 2019 Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2). Accordingly, independent claim 1 recites an abstract idea.
Next, the claim is analyzed to determine if it is integrated into a practical application. The recited judicial exception may be integrated into a practical application by identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception and evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether they integrate the exception into a practical application. The claim recites additional limitation of a first image processing unit, a second image processing unit, a first estimation unit and a distribution unit (claim 1), no additional elements (claim 9) and a computer/processor (claim 10) to perform the steps. The processor in the steps is recited at a high level of generality, i.e., as a generic computer performing a generic computer function of processing data (see Applicant’s specification, figure 10, elements 110 and 111). This generic computer limitations are no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer component. Also, these limitations are an attempt to limit the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(h). The claim is directed to the abstract idea.
Next, the claim is analyzed to determine if there are additional claim limitations that individually, or as an ordered combination, ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more than the abstract ideas (whether claim provides inventive concept). As discussed above, the recitation of the claimed limitations amounts to mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a server (using the computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea). Taking the additional elements individually and in combination, the processor at each step of the process performs purely generic computer functions. As such, there is no inventive concept sufficient to transform the claimed subject matter into a patent-eligible application. The same analysis applies here, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at or provide an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(h).
Viewing the limitations as an ordered combination does not add anything further than looking at the limitations individually. When viewed either individually, or as an ordered combination, the additional limitations do not amount to a claim as a whole that is significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Therefore, the claim does not amount to significantly more than the recited abstract idea. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
The analysis above applies to the statutory category of invention of claims 1, 9 and 10. Furthermore, dependent claims 3, 4 and 7 add the additional elements of a fourth image processing unit; a second estimation unit and a fifth image processing unit respectively. The dependent claims do not impart patent eligibility to the abstract idea of the independent claims. Therefore, none of the dependent claims alone or as an ordered combination add limitations that qualify as integrating the abstract idea into a practical application.
Lastly, dependent claims 2-8 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements are simply steps performed by a generic computer. The claim merely amounts to the application or instructions to apply the abstract idea on a processor, and is considered to amount to nothing more than requiring a generic server to merely carry out the abstract idea itself.
Accordingly, claims 1-10 are rejected as ineligible for patenting under 35 U.S.C. 101 based upon the same analysis.
The instant claims are rejected under 35 USC 101 in view of The Decision in Alice Corporation Ply. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, et al. in a unanimous decision, the Supreme Court held that the patent claims in Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, el al. ("Alice Corp. ") are not patent-eligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Bastani et al. (US 20210142145 A1) discloses “a system and a method for providing an artificial reality. In one aspect, a system includes a shared physical memory and a first processor having access to the shared physical memory. In one aspect, the first processor performs, during a first time period, a first rendering process to generate a first image frame of a first view of an artificial reality. In one aspect, the first processor performs, during a second time period, a second rendering process to generate a second image frame of a second view of the artificial reality. In one aspect, the system includes a second processor including a neural network and having access to the shared physical memory. In one aspect, the second processor performs, during a third time period overlapping a portion of the second time period, an image enhancing process on the first image frame” (see [0047]).
Ruggiero (US 9292904 B2) discloses “systems and methods that track overall time for processing operations such that the processing time can be shared among the resources efficiently. Processing time can be shifted to image processing to provide the most benefit to image quality. Moreover, access time from one process is banked to be used by a subsequent process or on a subsequent group of pixels. This document discusses systems and methods that provide additional processing power on an as needed basis. For example, a processing stage and its controller are outside the normal pixel processing flow path. When it is determined that additional processing is required, the processing stage and its controller are activated to perform the additional processing. This document discusses systems and methods that provide parallel processing in a processing stage such that the data can flow internal to the controller linked to the processing stage and globally”.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Hani Kazimi whose telephone number is (571) 272-6745. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday from 8:30 AM to 5:00 PM.
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, Abhishek Vyas can be reached on (571) 270-1836. 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.
Respectfully Submitted
/HANI M KAZIMI/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3691