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 .
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 s 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) the abstract ideas as explained in the Step 2A, Prong | analysis below. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application as explained in Step 2A, Prong 2 analysis below .The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because as explained in Step 2B analysis below.
STEP 2A, PRONG I:
Step 2A, prong 1, of the 2019 Guidance, first looks to whether the claim recites any judicial exceptions, including certain groupings of abstract ideas (i.e., mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing human activities such as a fundamental economic practice, or mental processes). 84 Fed. Reg. at 52-54.
The method of claim 1, 5, and 9 is directed to the limitations “input a plurality of radar images in which the same area is captured and a phase gradient model representing a phase difference between a plurality of nearby pixels on a surface of an object to be analyzed that may exist in the radar image, and extract from the radar image a component consistent with the phase difference represented by the phase gradient model” amount to a mental process, performable in the human mind or using pen and paper. Note that the “radar images” which forms the basis for the claimed processing need not be particularly complex. As such, claim 1, 5, and 9 recites an abstract idea.
The method of claim 2 and 6 is directed to the limitations “divide the radar image into small areas, eliminate the component consistent with the phase difference represented by the phase gradient model from each small area, and extract a dominant component in the radar image from which the phase difference has been eliminated.” amount to a mental process, performable in the human mind or using pen and paper. Note that the “radar images” which forms the basis for the claimed processing need not be particularly complex. As such, claim 2 and 6 recites an abstract idea.
The method of claim 3 and 7 is directed to the limitations “estimating the phase difference represented by the phase gradient model in the radar image using a surrounding reflection model representing a probability distribution of reflection from surrounding areas which are areas other than the object to be analyzed and the phase gradient model, and estimating an intensity of reflection from the object to be analyzed using a reflection intensity prior probability distribution model representing the intensity of reflection from the object to be analyzed and the phase gradient model“ amount to a mental process, performable in the human mind or using pen and paper. Note that the “radar images” which forms the basis for the claimed processing need not be particularly complex. As such, claim 3 and 7 recites an abstract idea.
The method of claim 4 and 8 is directed to the limitations “estimating an area to be analyzed using a layover area continuity model representing that a pixel neighboring the pixel of the object to be analyzed also likely to be a pixel of the object to be analyzed” amount to a mental process, performable in the human mind or using pen and paper. Note that the “radar images” which forms the basis for the claimed processing need not be particularly complex. As such, claim 4 and 8 recites an abstract idea.
STEP 2A, PRONG 2:
Step 2A, prong 2, of the 2019 Guidance, next analyzes whether the claims recite additional elements that individually or in combination integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. 2019 Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 53-55. The 2019 Guidance identifies considerations indicative of whether an additional element or combination of elements integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, such as an additional element reflecting an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to other technology or technical field. Id. at 55; MPEP § 2106.05(a).
In addition to reciting the above-noted abstract ideas, the issue is whether the claims as a whole including various additional elements integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application. In other words, do the claims as a whole produce any meaningful limits, i.e. improvement in technology?
(claim 1) image analysis device comprising: a memory storing software instructions, and one or more processors configured to execute the software instructions.
(claim 9) a non-transitory computer readable recording medium storing an image analysis program.
The additional limitations are directed data gathering and data processing and therefore, None of the additional limitations provide a meaningful limit on the claim invention. Rather, the additional limitations are directed data gathering and data processing which is an extra-solution activity.
STEP 2B:
Under step 2B of the 2019 Guidance, the issue is whether the claims adds any specific limitations beyond the judicial exception that, either alone or as an ordered combination, amount to more than “well-understood, routine, conventional” activity in the field. 84 Fed. Reg. at 56; MPEP § 2106.05(d).
The issue is whether the claims as a whole including the additional limitations, as an ordered combination, amount to more than “well-understood, routine, conventional” activity in the field. In other words, the issue is whether the additional elements in combination (as well as individually) amount to an inventive concept.
Again, the additional limitations are directed to mere data gathering and data processing which is “well-understood, routine, and conventional’ activity in the field. Thus, the additional limitations alone or in combination do not amount to an inventive concept.
Overall all the claims are directed to a three dimensional deformation field modeling, which is in and of itself an abstract idea because said modeling is a mental process and perhaps data manipulation thus possibly extra-solution activity. Again, a claim for a useful or beneficial abstract idea is still an abstract idea. See Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc. v. Sequenom, Inc., 788 F.3d 1371, 1379-80 (Fed. Cir. 2015). As such, the ordered combination of features is directed solely to abstract ideas or extra-solution activity as discussed supra.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 5, and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Zhang et al (US 20160232423).
Regarding claim 1, 5, and 9, Zhang teaches image analysis device comprising: a memory storing software instructions, and one or more processors configured to execute the software instructions (para 64, “The device 600 includes a processor 610 coupled to a memory 632. The processor 610 may execute an environmental scene condition detection module”) to input a plurality of radar images in which the same area is captured (para 222, It should be noted that the system 100 and the method 200 are compatible with digital images that include an alternative set of channels”) and a phase gradient model representing a phase difference between a plurality of nearby pixels on a surface of an object to be analyzed that may exist in the radar image (para 27, “The boundary may separate the input images based on combinations of dark features and gradient phases of the input images (whereas the boundary in the first scene clarity model 112 may separate the input images based on dark features alone). For example, each input image may be considered a data point in space (the space may include more than three dimensions). Each point may be defined by coordinates corresponding to the dark features and gradient phases and the boundary may correspond to a hyperplane dividing the input images in the space into unclear and clear images.”), and extract from the radar image a component consistent with the phase difference represented by the phase gradient model (para 27 and figure 2, items 212 and 214).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 2 and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang as applied to claim 1 and 5 above, and further in view of Yamaguchi et al (US 20040099819).
Regarding claim 2 and 6, Yamaguchi teaches divide the radar image into small areas, eliminate the component consistent with the phase difference represented by the phase gradient model from each small area (para 14, “input image dividing means for dividing the input image into preliminary areas, each of which the size is smaller than that of the template image”). It would have been obvious to modify Zhang to include divide the radar image into small areas, eliminate the component consistent with the phase difference represented by the phase gradient model from each small area because it is merely a substitution of a well-known method to process the image for an to determine an objects existence of Zhang for the method to process the image to determine an objects existence of Yamaguchi to yield a predictable object existence determination device.
Regarding claim 2 and 6, Zhang teach es extract a dominant component in the radar image from which the phase difference has been eliminated (para 26, “the environmental scene condition detection module 108 may extract second data 105 from the data representing the image“).
Claim(s) 4 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang as applied to claim 1 and 5 above, and further in view of Javaheri et al (US 20190107785).
Regarding claim 4 and 8, Javaheri teaches estimate an area to be analyzed using a layover area continuity model representing that a pixel neighboring the pixel of the object to be analyzed also likely to be a pixel of the object to be analyzed (para 85, “ the selected scatterometry model and asymmetry model are combined and, at step S17 the resultant system of model equations are solved for the unknown model parameters and the parameter of interest (e.g., overlay/focus/bottom grating asymmetry/sensor asymmetry etc.)”). It would have been obvious to modify Zhang to include estimate an area to be analyzed using a layover area continuity model representing that a pixel neighboring the pixel of the object to be analyzed also likely to be a pixel of the object to be analyzed because it is merely a substitution of a well-known method to process the image for an to determine an objects existence of Zhang for the method to process the image to determine an objects existence of Yamaguchi to yield a predictable object existence determination device.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3 and 7 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TIMOTHY A BRAINARD whose telephone number is (571)272-2132. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30 a.m.-5 p.m.
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, William Kelleher can be reached at 571-272-7753. 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.
TIMOTHY A. BRAINARD
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3648
/TIMOTHY A BRAINARD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3648