CTNF 18/620,582 CTNF 80126 Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia 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 07-04-01 AIA 07-04 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 1-2, 5, and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea) without integration into a practical application or recitation of significantly more. In the analysis below, claim 1 is directed to one of the four statutory categories of eligible subject matter; thus, the claim pass Step 1 of the Subject Matter Eligibility Test (See flowchart in MPEP 2106). Step 2A, prong 1: Yes The independent claim is directed to PNG media_image1.png 242 676 media_image1.png Greyscale When viewed under the broadest most reasonable interpretation, the instant claims are directed to Judicial Exception – an abstract idea belong to the group of mental process. Particularly, steps 3 and 4 can be performed mentally. For example, a person visibly monitoring a video could determine that two objects overlap in the view of the objects and based on a subjective degree of overlap determined by the user mentally extract features based on comparison with a mental threshold (for example deciding that enough of a person is in view to be able to determine what type of facial features they have). Hence, the limitations 3 and 4 are interpreted as mental steps. Additional elements The additional elements recited in each of the independent claims are memory and a processor for carrying out the steps. Step 2A, prong 2: No The above-identified additional elements do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Each of the other additional elements ( a memory and a processor ) amounts to merely using a generic computer as a tool to perform the claimed mental process. 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 other technology or technical field, the claimed steps are not performed using a particular machine, 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)). 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: No The pending claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As explained above in Prong Two, the additional elements in the claim amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer. Each of 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. 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 any 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). Claim 2 is similarly analyzed to claim 1 with the determining of a second score and determining not to extract features of the second object viewed as mental steps. Claim 5 is similarly analyzed to claim 1 with the amount of area a bounding box of the first object overlaps with the second objects bounding box being something that could be performed mentally. Claims 17-18 are similarly analyzed to claims 1-2. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 07-07-aia AIA 07-07 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 – 07-08-aia AIA (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. 07-15 AIA Claim s 1-2, 5, and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102( a)(1 ) as being anticipated by Tsunoda US 2023/0245427 . Regarding claim 1, Tsunoda discloses an apparatus for shape estimation (note shape estimation is only addressed in the preamble and not referred to in the body of the claim, thus no weight is given to estimating shape, however it is noted that Tsunoda discloses an image recognition apparatus to recognize a target thus is estimating a shape of the target, see paragraph 0003) PNG media_image2.png 244 348 media_image2.png Greyscale , comprising: at least one memory; and at least one processor coupled to the at least one memory and configured to (see above cited paragraph 0003, the apparatus includes a process and a memory storing executable instructions which cause the apparatus to perform operations): determine a first adjacency overlap (AdO) score of a first detected object in a first frame based on overlap between the first detected object and a second detected object in the first frame (see figure 1, and paragraph 0109, the degree of occlusion [interpreted as adjacency overlap score] is determined between the detected objects in frame such as between 105a, 105b and 105c) PNG media_image3.png 318 710 media_image3.png Greyscale PNG media_image4.png 485 354 media_image4.png Greyscale ; and extract features of the first detected object based on a comparison of the AdO score and a threshold AdO score (see above cited paragraph 0109, the degree of occlusion between the objects is compared to a threshold value and for example in the case of 105a it is determined that there is no occlusion or a degree of occlusion less than a fixed threshold value then a feature quantities can be extracted from the entire region of 105a). Regarding claim 2, Tsunoda discloses determine a second AdO score of the second detected object based on the overlap between the first detected object and a second detected object in the first frame; and determine not to extract features of the second detected object based on a comparison of the AdO score and a threshold AdO score (as described above in paragraph 0109, if the degree of overlap is equal to or greater than the fixed threshold such as 105b and 105c then filtering is performed on the regions thus deciding not to extract features directly from the regions). Regarding claim 5, Tsunoda discloses wherein the AdO score indicates an amount of area a bounding box of the first detected object overlaps with a bounding box of the second detected object (see above cited paragraph 0109, degree of overlap of bounding boxes is determined). Claim 17 is similarly analyzed and rejected to claim 1. Claim 18 is similarly analyzed and rejected to claim 2 . Allowable Subject Matter 12-151-08 AIA 07-43 12-51-08 Claim s 3-4, 6-16, and 19-20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Conclusion 07-96 AIA The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Please see the attached 892 notice of references cited . Contact Information Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN B STREGE whose telephone number is (571)272-7457. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5 (PST). 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, Chan Park can be reached at (571)272-7409. 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. /JOHN B STREGE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2669 Application/Control Number: 18/620,582 Page 2 Art Unit: 2669 Application/Control Number: 18/620,582 Page 3 Art Unit: 2669 Application/Control Number: 18/620,582 Page 4 Art Unit: 2669 Application/Control Number: 18/620,582 Page 5 Art Unit: 2669 Application/Control Number: 18/620,582 Page 6 Art Unit: 2669 Application/Control Number: 18/620,582 Page 7 Art Unit: 2669
Prosecution Insights