DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . It is responsive to the submission dated 05/13/2024. Claims 1-20 are presented for examination, of which, claims 1, 13 and 14 are independent claims.
Claim Interpretation
2. Claimed elements in this application that use the word “module” are presumed to invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Specifically, claim 13 recite the combinations of “effect trigger module”, “effect display module”, and “display adjusting module”. These elements as cited in the claim are construed by those skilled in the art to define structural elements, as defined by the original disclosure as at least FIG. 6 and paragraphs 160-163. Accordingly, these claimed limitations invoke 35 USC 112(f) interpretation to cover the corresponding structures described in the specification that achieves the claimed function, and equivalent thereof. If applicant does not intend to have the claim limitation(s) treated under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.112 , sixth paragraph, applicant may amend the claim(s) so that it/they will clearly not invoke 35 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, or present a sufficient showing that the claim recites/recite sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function to preclude application of 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
3. 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.
4. Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Under step 1, it is determined whether the claims are directed to a statutory category of invention (see MPEP 2106.03(II)). In the instant case, claims 1-12 are directed to a method, claim 13 is directed to an apparatus, and claims 14-20 are directed to a device.
While the claims fall within statutory categories, under revised Step 2A, Prong 1 of the eligibility analysis (MPEP 2106.04), the claimed invention recites an abstract idea of performing manual selection, detection, comparison and editing of images by a user (e.g., a method of organizing human activity).
Specifically, claim 1 recites the abstract ideas of:
an effect processing method, comprising:
obtaining, in response to an effect trigger operation, a liquid effect object and a to-be-processed scene image corresponding to the effect trigger operation; generating an effect scene image based on the liquid effect object and the to-be-processed scene image, and displaying the effect scene image; and adjusting, if a preset liquid level adjustment condition is detected to be achieved, a display liquid level of the liquid effect object, and updating the effect scene image based on the adjusted display liquid level.
Thus, claim 1 is a method, and thus falls into one of the statutory categories.
Claim 1, under its broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), covers performance of the limitations in the mind, but for the recitation of use of a generic display.
For example, under the BRI, the steps in claim 1 could be interpreted as:
obtaining, in response to an effect trigger operation, a liquid effect object and a to-be-processed scene image corresponding to the effect trigger operation (e.g., a person manually selects an object image reproduced on a clear or transparent sheet and another image reproduced on a regular (non-transparent) paper);
generating an effect scene image based on the liquid effect object and the to-be-processed scene image, and displaying the effect scene image (e.g., the person overlaps the clear/see-through object image with the paper image and then take a photo of the overlapped images using a cell phone); and
adjusting, if a preset liquid level adjustment condition is detected to be achieved, a display liquid level of the liquid effect object, and updating the effect scene image based on the adjusted display liquid level (e.g., the person, in his/her mind, after comparing the display of the photo of the overlapped images on his/her phone and the physical representation of the two images, determines that blending and superimposing the clear image and the paper image would yield a astatically pleasing visual effect image, and then decides to manually moves the clear image over the paper image take a photo of the blended images and applies a zooming and/or visual effect applications on the captured images using his/her cell phone).
Under revised Step 2A, Prong 1 of the eligibility analysis, it is necessary to evaluate whether the claim recites a judicial exception by referring to subject matter groupings articulated in 2106.04(a) of the MPEP. Even in consideration of the analysis, the claims recite an abstract idea. Representative claim 1 recites the abstract idea of manually collecting images, analyzing and comparing them, editing and displaying certain results of the edited collection, as noted above. This concept is construed to be a method of organizing human activity.
Under revised Step 2A, Prong 2 of the eligibility analysis, if it is determined that the claims recite a judicial exception, it is then necessary to evaluate whether the claims recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of that exception. In this case, representative claim 1 recites [applying] a trigger operation and provides that the adjusted image can be displayed.
Thus, in Step 2B, the additional elements of “a trigger operation” and “image display” are specified at a high level of generality in instant disclosure. For example, pars. 106, 133 and/or 161-162 of the original disclosure describes the “trigger operation” to occur when the cell phone user presses a key on the device and the “display” to be the screen of the device on which the user sees the images. These additional elements individually and in combination do not integrate the exception into the practical application because they are merely being used to apply the abstract idea using a generic mobile device or computer, as defined in the MPEP 2106.04(d).
Also, the courts have found that similar limitations as above do not provide enough details to qualify as "significantly more" when recited in a claim simply by appending well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception. Because the “trigger operation” and “display image”, as claimed, appear to be mere tangential addition to the abstract idea(s) and amount to extra-solution activity concerning mere data gathering. They do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, as the cited elements are token additions to the claim that do not alter or affect how the process steps or functions in the abstract idea(s) are performed, by merely selecting a key on a mobile device and providing an output of the recited mental process. Therefore, the claimed additional elements do not add meaningful limitations to the indicated claims beyond a general linking to a technological environment. See: MPEP 2106.05(h). Hence, they are not significantly more. See MPEP 2106.05 I. A.
As such, claim 1 is not patent eligible under 35 USC 101.
Claims 13 and 14 are not patent eligible under 35 USC 101 for the same reasons stated above with respect to claim 1. The claimed additional elements (e.g., the electronic device or apparatus with a processor, storage apparatus, trigger module and display module) do not add meaningful limitations to the indicated claims beyond a general linking to a technological environment. See: MPEP 2106.05(h). A computing/electronic device with a processor, memory, keyboard and a display, in the field image processing and/or use of mobile devices, are well-known, routine, and conventional, such as to not qualify as inventive concepts.
The integration of the abstract idea(s) into a practical application, using the additional elements to perform the abstract idea(s) amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Further, the above stated generic components are not integrated into the claim because they are merely incidental or token additions to the claim that do not alter or affect how the process steps or functions in the abstract idea(s) are performed. Therefore, the claimed additional elements do not add meaningful limitations to the indicated claims beyond a general linking to a technological environment. See: MPEP 2106.05(h).
Dependent claims 2 and 4 narrow the claimed abstract ideas (using, e.g., a triggering a control adjustment, a processing terminal, audio and/or gesture control and switching the display function) by defining processing procedures that a user with a smartphone is capable of performing after taking a photo or selfie and applying visual effects to the photo to create a video scene, accordingly, while controlling the audio output of the video during playback when the user switch the display mode from displaying a static image of the photo to a moving picture, as seen fit by the mobile device user.
Thus, the additional elements are merely incidental or token additions to the claims 2 and 4 that do not alter or affect how the process steps or functions in the abstract idea(s) are performed. Therefore, the claimed additional elements do not add meaningful limitations to the indicated claims 2 and 4 beyond a general linking to a technological environment. See: MPEP 2106.05(h).
Dependent claims 3, 5-12 further narrow the claimed abstract ideas by reciting steps that a user of the mobile with a camera can do after capturing images and applying image corrections including inserting certain visual effects to the images, or portions thereof, to create a scene or motion image. These steps add no meanings to the abstract ideas, as they serve as well-known, routine, and conventional techniques of using a smartphone.
The features of claims 15 and 17, when analyzed as a whole, considering the additional elements individually and/or as an ordered combination, are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 for similar reasons to those of claims 2 and 4.
The features of claims 16 and 18-20, when analyzed as a whole, considering the additional elements individually and/or as an ordered combination, are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 for similar reasons to those of claims 3 and 5-12.
As such, it is submitted that claims 2-12 and 15-20 fail to remedy the deficiencies of parent claims 1 and 14 above but merely shows detailed elements to be abstract. They are therefore rejected for at least the same rationale as applied to their parent claims above and incorporated herein.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
5. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
6. Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 1 is indefinite for reciting steps written with broadly functional claimed language that only describes the function of the invention as opposed to how it is carried out.
Particularly, claim 1 recites an effect processing method, comprising (the steps of):
obtaining, in response to an effect trigger operation, a liquid effect object and a to-be-processed scene image corresponding to the effect trigger operation; generating an effect scene image based on the liquid effect object and the to-be-processed scene image, and displaying the effect scene image; and adjusting, if a preset liquid level adjustment condition is detected to be achieved, a display liquid level of the liquid effect object, and updating the effect scene image based on the adjusted display liquid level.
These steps, as claimed, appear to merely provide a series of concatenated block box experiments, of which only inputs and outputs are specified. These steps in the claim provide no concrete functional or structural features explaining: how the object and scene images are obtained and generated; how the trigger operation is effect, how the adjustment condition is detected as well as adjusting and updating the scene image.
Claim 1 is also indefinite because it fails to provide how or as to whether or not the “scene image” to-be-processed is actual processed prior to (or after) the effect scene image is generated and displayed, because claim 4 further recites that the display status can be switched between the to-be-processed scene image and the liquid effect object.
Also, the origin of the liquid effect object and the to-be-processed scene image are not made clear in the claim. Hence, the limitations fail to limit the claim.
As per claims 6-7, the limitations reciting: “determining … caustics color information and basic color information corresponding to the liquid effect object;… wherein the determining caustics color information corresponding to the liquid effect object comprises: determining first caustics sampling coordinates and second caustics sampling coordinates; sampling a preset caustics map based on the first caustics sampling coordinates and the second caustics sampling coordinates, respectively, so as to obtain a first sampling caustics value and a second sampling caustics value….” render the claims indefinite, because it is not clear as to what is being encompassed by “caustics color information”, “basic color information” , “caustics sampling coordinates”; “preset caustics map” , and “sampling caustics value”.
The term “caustics” is vague and does not limit the claimed invention, including the technical problem being solved by the additional features that follow said term in the claims.
Also, the phrase “basic color information” renders the claimed limitation indefinite, because the meaning of the word "basic" may change depending on context and does not clearly limit the scope of the claim. Also, the term “caustics map” is vague and does not limit the scope of the claims, in light of what the applicant regards as the invention and the technical effect that is consistently caused over the entire claimed scope. Thus, the vagueness of the claimed features leaves the reader in doubt as to the meaning of the technical features to which they refer, thereby rendering the definition of the subject-matters of said claims unclear.
As such, it is submitted that the limitations of claims 1-12 are not only unduly broad with respect to the description of the embodiments and figures but also renders unclear the subject matters for which protection is sought in regard to a technical effect to be achieved. The ordinary skill in the art would not be able to draw a clear boundary between what is and is not covered by the claim. Accordingly, since the functional limitations fail to limit the claims, to make clear the scope of the claims, the applicant, in response to this office action, is suggested to amend the claims such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, or material for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter(s).
Additionally, in claims 1, 13 and 14, the applicants recite: “adjust[ing], if a preset liquid level adjustment condition is detected to be achieved, a display liquid level of the liquid effect object, and update[ing] the effect scene image based on the adjusted display liquid level”, which implies that the adjusting and updating steps are only performed if it is found that a preexisting condition to perform such a task is permissible. In such a case, the adjusting and updating steps are optional and not positively claimed. As a result, the generated effect scene image would be incomplete since it requires a scene image being processed according to the status of the display status (see paras. 109-112 of corresponding PGPUB application No. 20240378769), and no detail is provided in the claim that the scene image has actually been processed. Thus, the adjusting and updating steps are construed to include functional descriptive materials that describe the intended function of the user-interactive scene image. Hence, the metes and bound of the claims are unclear due to lack of clarification of what is being performed besides the generation of a scene image that lacks the effect of a processed scene image. As such, the ordinary skill in the art would not be able to draw a clear boundary between what is and is not covered by the claim.
The claims not specifically cited in this rejection are rejected as being dependent upon their rejected base claims.
Allowable Subject Matter
7. Claims 1-20 have no art rejection but rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 and 112(b). As the technical features of the wording of dependent claims 1-20 are indefinite for the reasons discussed above, the technical effect of the subject-matters of these claims is indeterminate and thus, they cannot be agreed that a problem is solved by each of these diverging claims. Thus, in the absence of a problem being solved, it is not, at present, apparent which part of the application could serve as a basis for a new, allowable claim. A final determination of patentability will be made upon resolution of the above 35 U.S.C. § 101 and 112(b) rejections.
Conclusion
8. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Nicholas et al. (US 20210033589) discloses a method for retrieving a corrected spectrum from a measured spectrum (e.g., retrieving a top-of-water spectrum from a measured top-of-atmosphere spectrum) includes creating a scene-specific model of a region of interest and performing a ray-tracing simulation to simulate rays of light that would reach an airborne (or spaceborne) sensor. The region of interest can be an optically complex area such as an inland or coastal body of water. Based on the ray-tracing simulation, a scene-specific correction for unwanted effects (e.g., adjacency effects, variable atmospheric conditions, and/or other suitable effects) is obtained. A corrected spectrum is obtained by correcting the measured spectrum using the scene-specific correction. The ray-tracing simulation may be performed using a graphical processing unit, allowing the scene-specific correction to be performed in real time or near real time.
Schwartz (US 20170056778) discloses a water slide entry system may also include a fluid delivery system configured to deliver fluid within the enclosure to a predetermined fill level and a control system configured to receive a signal that the rider is positioned on the entry platform; provide instructions to the fluid delivery system to deliver the fluid within the enclosure when the rider is positioned on the entry platform; and trigger the entry platform to release the rider into the water slide entry.
9. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WESNER SAJOUS whose telephone number is (571) 272-7791. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 10:00 TO 7:30 (ET).
Examiner interviews are available via telephone 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 or email the Examiner directly at wesner.sajous@uspto.gov.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Said Broome can be reached on 571-272-2931. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. 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. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/WESNER SAJOUS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2612
WS
01/21/2026