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 .
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper content of an abstract of the disclosure.
A patent abstract is a concise statement of the technical disclosure of the patent and should include that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains. The abstract should not refer to purported merits or speculative applications of the invention and should not compare the invention with the prior art.
If the patent is of a basic nature, the entire technical disclosure may be new in the art, and the abstract should be directed to the entire disclosure. If the patent is in the nature of an improvement in an old apparatus, process, product, or composition, the abstract should include the technical disclosure of the improvement. The abstract should also mention by way of example any preferred modifications or alternatives.
Where applicable, the abstract should include the following: (1) if a machine or apparatus, its organization and operation; (2) if an article, its method of making; (3) if a chemical compound, its identity and use; (4) if a mixture, its ingredients; (5) if a process, the steps.
Extensive mechanical and design details of an apparatus should not be included in the abstract. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. See MPEP § 608.01(b) for guidelines for the preparation of patent abstracts.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-28, are objected to because of the following informalities: In claim 1, lines 6-7, recites “this candidate image”, however should recite “said candidate image”. Further in claim 1, line 30, “this” should be changed to “said”. Further, claim 1, line 32, recites “the candidate and reference lists”, however should recite “the candidate list and the reference list”. Appropriate correction is required. Claims 2-28, are objected based on their dependency on the objected claim and inherent the same objection.
Claim 7, further objected to because of the following informalities: in claim 7, line 2 recites “m”, here variable “m” needs to be defined. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 11, further objected to because of the following informalities: In claim 11, lines 2-3, recites “criterion so as to choose”, however should recite “criterion . Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 13, further objected to because of the following informalities: in claim 13, line 9, claimed “this” should be changes to “said”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 20, further objected to because of the following informalities: in claim 20, lines 4-5, recites “category so as to form subsets”, however should recite “category to form subsets”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 22, further objected to because of the following informalities: in claim 22, line 5, recites “in step b) so that the distributions”, however should recite “in step b) . Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 23, further objected to because of the following informalities: in claim 22, line 5, recites “in step b) so that each point of interest”, however should recite “in step b) . Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 24, further objected to because of the following informalities: in claim 24, line 2, recites “a candidate image (Ican)”, however should recite “the candidate image (Ican)”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 29, further objected to because of the following informalities: in claim 29, line 6, recites “this image”, however should recite “said reference image”. Appropriate correction is required. Claim 30 objected based on its dependency on the objected claim and inherent the same objection.
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- 30, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Regarding claim 1:
Claim 1 is directed to idea of itself (abstract idea) without significantly more for the following reason(s):
Step 1: Claim 1 recites a method for correlating at least part of a candidate image (Ican) with at least one reference image (Iréf1, Iréf2, Iréf3, Iréf4, Iréf5, . . . , Iréfk), comprising the following steps: a) implementing a relational repository (R) comprising at least: an ordered list of relational descriptors (Desc1, Desc2, Desc3, . . . , DescN), at least one computing mode to be applied to the candidate image in order to determine descriptors of this candidate image, and a mode for determining the degree of similarity between two descriptors, b) implementing, for each reference image (Iréf1, Iréf2, Iréf3, Iréf4, Iréf5, . . . , Iréfk), a reference list (L1, L2, . . . , L5, . . . , Lk) that comprises the positions, referred to as reference points of interest, in the reference image (Iréf1, Iréf2, Iréf3, Iréf4, Iréf5, . . . , Iréfk), of descriptors of the reference image that are similar to relational descriptors (Desc1′, Desc2′, Desc3′, . . . , DescN′) from a relational repository compatible with the relational repository (R), which reference list (L1, L2, . . . , L5, . . . , Lk) is ordered on the basis of the order (1, 2, 3, . . . , N′) of this compatible relational repository, c) determining, in the candidate image (Ican), descriptors of the candidate image that are computed in line with each descriptor computing mode of the relational repository (R) implemented in step a), and determining the position of each of these descriptors in the candidate image (Ican), d) determining the degree of similarity, determined in line with the determination mode of the relational repository (R) implemented in step a), between each descriptor of the candidate image (Ican) and each relational descriptor (Desc1, Desc2, Desc3, . . . , DescN) of the relational repository (R) implemented in step a), e) determining a candidate list (Lc) that comprises the positions, referred to as candidate points of interest, in the candidate image (Ican), of the descriptors of the candidate image exhibiting the greatest similarity with the relational descriptors (Desc1, Desc2, Desc3, . . . , DescN) of the relational repository (R) implemented in step a), which candidate list (Lc) is ordered on the basis of the order (1, 2, 3, . . . , N) of this relational repository (R), and f) processing the candidate list (Lc) with respect to each reference list (L1, L2, . . . , L5, . . . , Lk) on the basis of the order of the candidate and reference lists. Thus, the claim is directed to a method, which is one of the statutory categories of the invention.
Step 2A prong 1, the claimed implementing a relational repository, implementing for each reference image a reference list, determining candidate image, determining degree of similarity, determining a candidate list and processing the candidate list are directed to abstract idea for the reason that these steps are processes found by the courts to be abstract ideas in that related to “mental processes grouping” more specifically, “collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis,” where said steps are recited at a high level of generality such that they could practically be performed in the human mind and/or with a pen and paper, Electric Power Group v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353-54, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1741-42 (Fed. Cir. 2016);. That is, nothing in the claim element precludes the steps from practically being performed in the mind using observation, evaluation, judgement and opinion. Thus, these steps are an abstract idea in the “mental process” grouping. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A prong 2, The Judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Treating claim 1 as a whole, the claim limitations do not show inventive concept in applying the judicial exception. From the claim scope, the claim fail to address any improvement because merely implementing a relational repository, implementing for each reference image a reference list, determining candidate image, determining degree of similarity, determining a candidate list and processing the candidate list is not enough to tie the claim towards the technical improvement and can be performed in human mind and/or on a piece of paper. Thus, claim 1 as a whole is not significantly more than the abstract idea itself and is ineligible.
Step 2B, The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Hence, the claim do not integrate the exception into a practical application and do not amount to claiming significantly more than the recited judicial exception. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claims 2-28.
Claims 2-28, are rejected under 35 U.S.C 101 because the claimed invention is directed to idea of itself (abstract idea) without significantly more, nothing in the claims element precludes the steps from practically being performed in the mind. The claims does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Therefore, said claims are not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 29.
Claim 29, rejected under 35 U.S.C 101 because the claimed invention is directed to idea of itself (abstract idea) without significantly more, nothing in the claims element precludes the steps from practically being performed in the mind and/or with a pen and paper. The claims does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Therefore, said claims are not patent eligible as being explained above with respect to claim 1.
Regarding claim 30.
Claim 30, rejected under 35 U.S.C 101 because the claimed invention is directed to idea of itself (abstract idea) without significantly more, nothing in the claims element precludes the steps from practically being performed in the mind. The claims does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Therefore, said claims are not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claims 1-28, 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The following is merely indicative of the extensive issues present. Applicant is encouraged to thoroughly review the claim language to particularly point out distinctly claim the subject matter prior to any response, as the Examiner may not address every single issue.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the degree" in line 7, and further recites “the positions” in line 10. There are insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim. Further, Claim 1, in lines 13-16, recites “a relational repository compatible with the relational repository (R), which reference list (L1, L2, . . . , L5, . . . , Lk) is ordered on the basis of the order (1, 2, 3, . . . , N′) of this compatible relational repository”. First of all, from the claim language it is not clear whether the claimed “a relational repository” and “the relational repository” is same or different. Further, compatibility appears to be limited to the fact that the positions of the points of interest (coordinate in the list) determined by different filters, for example are the same. Hence two different methods are used to determine a descriptor for the same point of interest. The features of “compatibility” therefore be defined in the claim. Secondly, said claim limitation recites “which reference list” and also recites “this compatible relational repository” here from the claim language “which” and “this” is not clear where claim is referring to. Further, line 29, also recites “which candidate list”, not clear which list is being referred to. Hence rendering claim 1, and its dependent claims 2-27, indefinite.
Regarding claim 4, in line 4, recites "preferable" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim 9, recites the limitation "the homologous reference points of interest" in lines 3-4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 11, line 3 recites “the geometric transformation is best” in line 3. The term “best” is relative term which render claim 11, indefinite. The term “best” are not defined by the claims, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised the scope of the claimed invention. Similar issue exist in claim 14, line 2 and is indefinite for the same reason.
Claim 12, recites the limitation “each geometric transformation sought in step f)”, however claimed “step f)” does not recites any geometric transformation”. Hence, from the claim language it is not clear which transformation is being referred to. Rendering claim 12, indefinite.
Claim 13, recites limitation “a computing mode” and “a relational repository”, in lines 7-8, respectively. However, from the claim language it is not clear whether the claimed “a computing mode” and “a relational repository” are same as being claimed in claim 1 in which claim 13 depends from or different. Hence rendering claim 13 indefinite.
Claim 20, recites the limitation "the compatible relational repository" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 21, recites the limitation "the compatible relational repository" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 22, recites the limitation "the compatible relational repository" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 23, recites the limitation "the compatible relational repository" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claims 25-28, Claim 25, recites “The use of correlation method”, indefinite because it merely recites a use without any active, positive steps delimiting how this use is actually practiced (MPeP 2173.05(q)). Similar issue exist in claims 26-28, and are rejected based on same grounds of rejection.
Claim 29, recites the limitation "the position" in lines 9-10, and further recites “the positions” in line 14. There are insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim. Further claim 29, in lines17-18, recites “that is ordered”, however from the claim language it is not clear which order being referred to in the claim i.e., increasing order or decreasing order . Hence rendering claim 29 and its dependent claim 30 indefinite.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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) 1, 4, 20-24, and 29-30, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Herve (FR 2875628 A1, please note, English translation of the FR is being attached and used for citations below, hereinafter Herve) and further in view of Zhou (US PGPUB 2014/0147022 A1).
As per claim 1, Herve discloses a method for correlating at least part of a candidate image (Ican) with at least one reference image (Iréf1, Iréf2, Iréf3, Iréf4, Iréf5, . . . , Iréfk), comprising the following steps:
a) implementing a relational repository (R) comprising at least: an ordered list of relational descriptors (Desc1, Desc2, Desc3, . . . , DescN), at least one computing mode to be applied to the candidate image in order to determine descriptors of this candidate image, and a mode for determining the degree of similarity between two descriptors (Herve, please see page 4, which discloses the points of interest are extrema of a filtering operator, and in particular a Laplacian Gaussian operator. Thus, the process is fast and robust to any colorimetric changes in the image. In order to have a sufficient number of points to describe an image, while keeping a compact descriptor, it is particularly advantageous to retain two points of interest for each block, one of said type, corresponding to a minimum value. of the filtered image and the second, said second type, corresponding to a maximum value of the filtered image),
b) implementing, for each reference image (Iréf1, Iréf2, Iréf3, Iréf4, Iréf5, . . . , Iréfk), a reference list (L1, L2, . . . , L5, . . . , Lk) that comprises the positions, referred to as reference points of interest, in the reference image (Iréf1, Iréf2, Iréf3, Iréf4, Iréf5, . . . , Iréfk), of descriptors of the reference image that are similar to relational descriptors (Desc1′, Desc2′, Desc3′, . . . , DescN′) from a relational repository compatible with the relational repository (R), which reference list (L1, L2, . . . , L5, . . . , Lk) is ordered on the basis of the order (1, 2, 3, . . . , N′) of this compatible relational repository (Herve, please see page 4, discloses comparison of point of interest),
c) determining, in the candidate image (Ican), descriptors of the candidate image that are computed in line with each descriptor computing mode of the relational repository (R) implemented in step a), and determining the position of each of these descriptors in the candidate image (Ican) (Herve, please see page 4),
e) determining a candidate list (Lc) that comprises the positions, referred to as candidate points of interest, in the candidate image (Ican), of the descriptors of the candidate image exhibiting the greatest similarity with the relational descriptors (Desc1, Desc2, Desc3, . . . , DescN) of the relational repository (R) implemented in step a), which candidate list (Lc) is ordered on the basis of the order (1, 2, 3, . . . , N) of this relational repository (R) (Herve, page 4), and
f) processing the candidate list (Lc) with respect to each reference list (L1, L2, . . . , L5, . . . , Lk) on the basis of the order of the candidate and reference lists (Hereve, page 4, discloses processing of list).
Herve does not explicitly disclose d) determining the degree of similarity, determined in line with the determination mode of the relational repository (R) implemented in step a), between each descriptor of the candidate image (Ican) and each relational descriptor (Desc1, Desc2, Desc3, . . . , DescN) of the relational repository (R) implemented in step a),
Zhou discloses d) determining the degree of similarity, determined in line with the determination mode of the relational repository (R) implemented in step a), between each descriptor of the candidate image (Ican) and each relational descriptor (Desc1, Desc2, Desc3, . . . , DescN) of the relational repository (R) implemented in step a) (Zhou, Fig. 5:508, paragraphs 29-34 and 45-49),
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Herve teachings by determining optimal landmark localization technique to the system, as taught by Zhou.
The motivation would be to provide an improve landmark localization in images (paragraph 2), as taught by Zhou.
As per claim 4, Herve in view of Zhou further discloses the correlation method as claimed in claim 1, wherein the processing in step f) comprises registering the candidate list (Lc) in a form able to be used for computerized or automatic manipulation, preferably in a form analogous to that of the corresponding reference list (L1, L2, . . . , L5, . . . , Lk) (Herve, page 5).
As per claim 20, Herve in view of Zhou further discloses the correlation method as claimed in claim 1, wherein the relational descriptors ((Desc1, Desc2, Desc3, . . . , DescN), (Desc1′, Desc2′, Desc3′, DescN′)) included in the ordered list of the relational repository (R) or of the compatible relational repository are grouped by category so as to form subsets of descriptors having at least one common characteristic (Herve, please see page 5 and 6, discloses common characteristics between two images).
As per claim 21, Herve in view of Zhou further discloses the correlation method as claimed in claim 1, wherein the ordered list of relational descriptors ((Desc1, Desc2, Desc3, . . . , DescN), (Desc1′, Desc2′, Desc3′,. . . , DescN′)) of the relational repository (R) or of the compatible relational repository stems from a complex repository image (Herve, page 4).
As per claim 22, Herve in view of Zhou further discloses the correlation method as claimed in claim 1, wherein the ordered list of relational descriptors ((Desc1, Desc2, Desc3, . . . , DescN), (Desc1′, Desc2′, Desc3′,. . . , DescN′)) of the relational repository (R) or of the compatible relational repository is optimized on the basis of the reference lists (L1, L2, . . . , L5, . . . , Lk) implemented in step b), so that the distributions of the points of interest corresponding to each of the descriptors of the reference image (Iréf1, Iréf2, Iréf3, Iréf4, Iréf5, . . . , Iréfk) are as far away as possible from one reference image (Iréf1, Iréf2, Iréf3, Iréf4, Iréf5, . . . , Iréfk) to another (Herve, pages 4-5).
As per claim 23, Herve in view of Zhou further discloses the correlation method as claimed in claim 1, wherein the ordered list of relational descriptors ((Desc1, Desc2, Desc3, . . . , DescN), (Desc1′, Desc2′, Desc3′, . . . , DescN′)) of the relational repository (R) or of the compatible relational repository is optimized on the basis of the reference lists (L1, L2, . . . , L5, . . . , Lk) implemented in step b), so that each point of interest corresponding to one of the descriptors of the reference image is locally distributed in each reference image (Iréf1, Iréf2, Iréf3, Iréf4, Iréf5, . . . , Iréfk) (Herve, pages 4-5, discloses image points distribution).
As per claim 24, Herve in view of Zhou further discloses the method as claimed in claim 1, wherein a candidate image (Ican) is correlated with multiple reference images (Iréf1, Iréf2, Iréf3, Iréf4, Iréf5, . . . , Iréfk) (Herve, pages 4-5, discloses digital images).
As per claim 29, please see the analysis of claim 1.
As per claim 30, Herve in view of Zhou further discloses the method as claimed in claim 29, wherein a set of reference lists is created by iterating the determining steps of claim 29, based on the implementation of mutually compatible relational repositories (Herve, pages 14-15).
Examiner’s Note: Any indication of allowable subject matter is being held in abeyance pending the response to the rejections under 35 U.S.C 101 and 35 U.S.C 112(b).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SYED Z HAIDER whose telephone number is (571)270-5169. The examiner can normally be reached MONDAY-FRIDAY 9-5:30 EST.
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, SAM K Ahn can be reached at 571-272-3044. 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.
/SYED HAIDER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2633