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 is in response to applicant’s amendment/response filed on 11/19/2025, which has
been entered and made of record. Claim 1 is amended. Claims 5-6 are added. Claims 1-6 are pending in the application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant arguments regarding claim rejections under 101 are considered, but are not persuasive.
Applicant argues: The amended claim1 recites "an image comparison device comprises processing circuitry and a display device including display screen" and "the processing circuitry is configured to display, on the display screen, a specific video including the most frequently occurring value calculated as the value indicating the scaling ratio of the second image to the first image." Applicant respectfully submits that the above claim language at least integrates the allegedly abstract idea into a practical application.
According to the invention set forth in amended claim 1, as described in paragraph [0048] of the specification, it is possible to provide an image comparison device capable of showing a user an accurate scaling ratio between the first image and the second image by a simple method.
Therefore, claim 1 recites elements which amount to significantly more than a judicial exception and so is directed to eligible subject matter under 35 USC101. Accordingly, applicant respectfully requests withdrawal of the rejection of claims 1-4 under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Examiner disagrees: The amended claim 1 includes a processing circuitry to process the abstract idea of the claim 1. The recited display device is used to present the results of an abstract idea. Both of them (the judicial exception) are not integrated into a practical application because mere instruction to implement on a computer (circuitry), or merely using a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, and/or generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a technological environment or field of use is not considered integration into a practical application.
Meanwhile, the processing circuitry and display are merely conventional computer to perform conventional function, which do not provide any improvement of the functioning of the computer or improvement to computer technology or any other technical field. There do not appear to be any meaningful limitations other than those that are well-understood, routine and conventional in the field. Thus the present claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Applicant argues:
PNG
media_image1.png
252
697
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Examiner disagrees: Claim 5 recites “indicating the difference between the modified image and the second image”, which can be a mental process and performed by an pen and paper. The using the video to show the results are merely use a computerized way to present the results of an abstract idea. Using a computer as a tool to display the abstract idea results, adds insignificant extra solution activity, which is not considered integration into a practical application and nor does it include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Applicant argues:
PNG
media_image2.png
281
695
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Examiner disagrees: Claim 6 recites allowing uses to receive input information, which is just data retrieval, an abstract idea. The use of input device to acquire input data are merely use a computerized way implement an abstract idea. Using a computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea, adds insignificant extra solution activity, which is not considered integration into a practical application and nor does it include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
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 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter because the claim(s) as a whole, considering all claim elements both individually and in combination, do not amount to significantly more than an abstract idea. As summarized in the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, examiners must perform a Two-Part Analysis for Judicial Exceptions.
Step 1
In Step 1, it must be determined whether the claimed invention is directed to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter. The instant invention encompasses a device in claims 1-6. All claims are directed to one of the four statutory categories and meet the requirements of step 1.
Step 2A
Prong One
The claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The instant invention is broadly directed to device. Claim 1 recites the following (with emphasis added):
Claim 1: An image comparison device, comprising processing circuitry and a display device including display screen, the processing circuitry being configured to:
obtain a first image;
obtain a second image, the second image being different from the first image;
identify multiple first objects in the first image;
identify multiple second objects in the second image;
calculate a first specific length for each of the first objects, the first specific length being a length in a predetermined specific direction;
calculate a second specific length for each of the second objects, the second specific length being a length in the specific direction;
calculate values of a specific variable for all combinations of the first specific lengths and the second specific lengths, each value of the specific variable indicating a ratio between one of the first specific lengths and one of the second specific lengths; and
calculate a most frequently occurring value among the values of the specific variable as a value indicating a scaling ratio of the second image to the first image; and
display, on the display screen, a specific video including the most frequently occurring value calculated as the value indicating the scaling ratio of the second image to the first image.
Claim 1 encompass the abstract idea, which is also encompassed by the dependent claims 2-4.
Claim 1 recites the steps for collecting data and performing mathematical calculation and generating results. Claim 2-3 recites more steps about mathematical calculation. These steps are directed to certain methods of organizing human activity and mental processes, which can be done by pen and paper. Claim 4 uses the mathematical results to scaling image, which is also directed to organizing human activity and mental processes and can be done by pen and paper.
Prong Two
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because mere instruction to implement on a computer (circuitry), or merely using a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, and/or generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a technological environment or field of use is not considered integration into a practical application. Claims 5-6 recites steps about receiving inputs and presenting results, which are just using a computer (display and processing circuit) to receive input and present results for abstract idea. This are not considered integration into a practical application. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the present claims include the additional elements other than the abstract idea which include a computer. The conventional computers claimed as circuitry amount to merely field of use type limitations and/or extra solution activity to implement the mental processes using mathematical calculation.
Step 2B
Step 2B in the analysis requires us to determine whether the claims do significantly more than simply describe that abstract method. Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1297. We must examine the limitations of the claims to determine whether the claims contain an "inventive concept" to "transform" the claimed abstract idea into patent-eligible subject matter. Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2357 (quoting Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1294, 1298). The transformation of an abstract idea into patent-eligible subject matter "requires 'more than simply stat[ing] the [abstract idea] while adding the words 'apply it."' Id. (quoting Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1294) (alterations in original). "A claim that recites an abstract idea must include 'additional features' to ensure 'that the [claim] is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the [abstract idea].'" Id. (quoting Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1297) (alterations in original). Those "additional features" must be more than "well-understood, routine, conventional activity." Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1298.
The present claims include the additional elements other than the abstract idea which include a computer claimed as a circuitry and a display. These additional elements are merely conventional computer. Any potentially technical aspects of the claims are well-known generic computer components performing conventional functions (e.g., a processor performing generic data handling using mathematical concepts). The present claims have been analyzed both individually and in combination and, the instant claims do not provide any improvement of the functioning of the computer or improvement to computer technology or any other technical field. There do not appear to be any meaningful limitations other than those that are well-understood, routine and conventional in the field. Thus the present claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
The claims are generally linked to implement an abstract idea on a computer. When looked at individually and as a whole, the claim limitations are determined to be an abstract idea without "significantly more," and thus not patent eligible.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-6 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101, set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 1, Ren et al. (US 2021/0321040 A1) teaches:
obtain a first image; ([0126], “[0126] step 1: obtaining a first image captured by the second long zoom lens at the first focal length.”)
obtain a second image, the second image being different from the first image; (“[0129] step 3: setting the focal length of the first short zoom lens as the second focal length, and obtaining a reference image captured by the first short zoom lens at the second focal length.”)
identify …first objects in the first image; (See FIG. 9 (a) the object is identified.)
identify … second objects in the second image; (See FIG. 9 (b) the object is identified.)
calculate a first specific length for each of the first objects, the first specific length being a length in a predetermined specific direction; (See FIG. 9(a) the length of the Hq)
calculate a second specific length for each of the second objects, the second specific length being a length in the specific direction; (See FIG. 9(b) the length of the Hp)
calculate a specific variable indicating a ratio between the one first specific length and the second specific length([0133] step 2: calculating the ratio of the length of the feature in the reference image to the length of the feature in the first image and the ratio of the height of the feature in the reference image to the height of the feature in the first image to obtain a target scaling ratio;)
However, Ren does not teach:
Multiple first objects and multiple second objects
calculate values of a specific variable for all combinations of the first specific lengths and the second specific lengths, each value of the specific variable indicating a ratio between one of the first specific lengths and one of the second specific lengths;
calculate a most frequently occurring value among the values of the specific variable as a value indicating a scaling ratio of the second image to the first image; and display, on the display screen, a specific video including the most frequently occurring value calculated as the value indicating the scaling ratio of the second image to the first image.
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 YANNA WU whose telephone number is (571)270-0725. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8:00-5:30 ET.
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, Alicia Harrington can be reached at 5712722330. 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.
/YANNA WU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2615