DETAILED ACTION
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 .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Claims 1, 13 and 20 recite performing a first division on an acquired preprocessed image to obtain a plurality of first sub-image regions; When it is determined that image parameters of the plurality of first sub-image regions do not meet a first preset condition, performing a second division on the plurality of first sub-image regions, to obtain a plurality of second sub-image regions; Performing attribute identification on each second sub-image region of the plurality of second sub-image regions to obtain an identification attribute of each second sub-image region; according to an image processing method corresponding to the identification attribute of each second sub-image region, performing image processing on the second sub-image region to obtain a third sub-image region;
The limitation of performing a first division on an acquired preprocessed image to obtain a plurality of first sub-image regions, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance
of the limitation in the mind, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically
being performed in the mind. For example, but for the language, “performing” in
the context of this claim encompasses the user mentally performing the division of the image.
Similarly, the limitation when it is determined that image parameters of the plurality of first sub-image regions do not meet a first preset condition, performing a second division on the plurality of first sub-image regions, to obtain a plurality of second sub-image regions. Under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the language, “performing” in the context of this claim encompasses the user mentally performing the second division of the image. The limitation performing attribute identification on each second sub-image region of the plurality of second sub-image regions to obtain an identification attribute of each second sub-image region and performing image processing on the second sub-image region to obtain a third sub-image region. Under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the language, “performing” in the context of this claim encompasses the user mentally obtaining an identification attribute of the image and third sub-image region. 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 one additional element merging a plurality of sub-image regions to obtain a target image. It is assumed a processor may perform the performing steps. The processor in the steps can be recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function of performing the division of images based on a determined preset or attribute) 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 the performing 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 cannot provide an inventive concept. The claims are not patent eligible
Claims 2-12 and 14-19 depend on claims 1 and 13, respectively.
Related Prior Art
Zhang et al (10,290,108)Performing a first division on an acquired preprocessed image to obtain a plurality of first sub-image regions (note fig. 2a block 202-1 first decomposition unit).
Penn (11,563,899) Performing a first division on an acquired image to obtain a plurality of first sub-image regions (note col. 4 lines 20-25, cites images divided into sub-images).
Jeon (11,257,228) Performing image processing on the second sub-image region to obtain a third sub-image region (note col. 17 lines 13-20, generating third sub-image).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GREGORY M DESIRE whose telephone number is (571)272-7449. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 6:30am-3:00pm.
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, Henok Shiferaw can be reached at 571-272-4637. 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.
G.D.
January 24, 2026
/GREGORY M DESIRE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2676