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 .
Drawings
Figures (17A, B, 18A, B, 19A, B) should be designated by a legend such as --Prior Art-- because only that which is old is illustrated. See MPEP § 608.02(g). Corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The replacement sheet(s) should be labeled “Replacement Sheet” in the page header (as per 37 CFR 1.84(c)) so as not to obstruct any portion of the drawing figures. If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claims (1, 14) are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 1, line 1 the limitation of “The region correction device” should be rewritten as “A region correction device”.
In claim 14, line 9 the period “.” should be replace by “; and”.
MPEP 608.01(i) states:
The claim or claims must commence on a separate physical sheet or electronic page and should appear after the detailed description of the invention. Any sheet including a claim or portion of a claim may not contain any other parts of the application or other material. While there is no set statutory form for claims, the present Office practice is to insist that each claim must be the object of a sentence starting with "I (or we) claim," "The invention claimed is" (or the equivalent). If, at the time of allowance, the quoted terminology is not present, it is inserted by the Office of Data Management. Each claim begins with a capital letter and ends with a period. Periods may not be used elsewhere in the claims except for abbreviations. See Fressola v. Manbeck, 36 USPQ2d 1211 (D.D.C. 1995). Where a claim sets forth a plurality of elements or steps, each element or step of the claim should be separated by a line indentation, 37 CFR 1.75 (i). Appropriate correction is required.
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 (14-19) 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.
Claim 14 recites the limitation "generating one or more suggested responses to the predicted first subsequent query and the second subsequent query." in lines 10-11. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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 (1-7, 9-19) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter, specifically an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims (1-7, 9-19) are directed to the abstract idea of Mental processes – concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion). Specifically, MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III states “If a claim recites a limitation that can practically be performed in the human mind, with or without the use of a physical aid such as pen and paper, the limitation falls within the mental processes grouping, and the claim recites an abstract idea. See, e.g., Benson, 409 U.S. at 67, 65, 175 USPQ at 674-75, 674”.
“receiving an input of prediction region information indicating a prediction region indicating an image of a predetermined subject,; extracting a line segment corresponding to a contour of the predetermined subject, on a basis of a contour of the prediction region indicated by the prediction region information; correcting the prediction region on a basis of the line segment; and output corrected prediction region information indicating a corrected prediction region, the corrected prediction region being the prediction region that has been corrected.”
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claims recite additional limitations such “The region correction device; the prediction region being detected from a captured image obtained by imaging the predetermined subject; generating one or more suggested responses to the predicted first subsequent query and the second subsequent query”. However, these limitations are not enough to qualify as “practical application” being recited in the claims along with the abstract idea since these limitations are merely invoked as a tool to perform instruction of abstract idea in a particular technological environment and/or are generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use, and merely applying and abstract idea in a particular technological environment and merely limiting use of an abstract idea to a particular field or a technological environment do not provide practical application for an abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05 (f) & (h)). The claims do not amount to "practical application" for the abstract idea because they neither (1) recite any improvements to another technology or technical field; (2) recite any improvements to the functioning of the computer itself; (3) apply the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine; (4) effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; (5) provide other meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claims recite additional limitations which are “The region correction device; the prediction region being detected from a captured image obtained by imaging the predetermined subject; generating one or more suggested responses to the predicted first subsequent query and the second subsequent query”. However, these limitations are not enough to qualify as “significantly more” being recited in the claims along with the abstract idea since these limitations are merely invoked as a tool to perform instruction of Abstract idea in a particular technological environment and/or are generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use, and merely applying and abstract idea in a particular technological environment and merely limiting use of an abstract idea to a particular field or a technological environment do not provide significantly more to an abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(f) & (h)). The claims do not amount to "significantly more" than the abstract idea because they neither (1) recite any improvements to another technology or technical field; (2) recite any improvements to the functioning of the computer itself; (3) apply the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine; (4) effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; (5) add a specific limitation other than what is well-understood, routine and conventional in the field; (6) add unconventional steps that confine the claim to a particular useful application; nor (7) provide other meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment.
Therefore, since there are no limitations in the claims (1-7, 9-19) that transform the exception into a patent eligible application such that the claims amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and looking at the limitations as a combination and as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually, claims (1-7, 9-19) are rejected under 35 USC § 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
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) (1-2, 4-7, 9, 11-13) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kimura. (US Publication 2020/0184249 A1)
Re claim 1, Kimura discloses the region correction device (See fig. 1: 10 where it teaches a controller comprising at least one corrector.) comprising: receiving an input of prediction region information indicating a prediction region indicating an image of a predetermined subject (See fig. 1: 12; fig. 4A; ¶ 65-73 where it teaches candidate region extractor.), the prediction region being detected from a captured image obtained by imaging the predetermined subject (See fig. 1: 11; fig. 3A; ¶ 60-64 where it teaches an image data obtainer.); extracting a line segment corresponding to a contour of the predetermined subject, on a basis of a contour of the prediction region indicated by the prediction region information (See fig. 1: 15; fig. 5A; ¶ 89-94 where it teaches extracting line segments.); correcting the prediction region on a basis of the line segment (See fig. 1: 16; fig. 5B; ¶ 95-97, 107-108 where it teaches a line corrector.); and output corrected prediction region information indicating a corrected prediction region, the corrected prediction region being the prediction region that has been corrected. (See fig. 1: 17; fig. 5B; ¶ 107-108 where it teaches outputting the image showing the correction.)
Re claim 2, Kimura discloses wherein the prediction region information is a binarized image including pixels determined to be one of a prediction pixel included in the prediction region or a non-prediction pixel included in a non-prediction region that is not the prediction region, and the binarized image is corrected, on a basis of positions of a line segment pixel indicating the line segment, and the prediction pixel and the non-prediction pixel. (See fig. 5A; B; ¶ 71)
Re claim 4, Kimura discloses wherein a plurality of possible line segments is extracted on a basis of the contour, and extracts the line segment from the plurality of possible line segment on a basis of at least one of a distance to another possible line segment from each possible line segment of the plurality of possible line segments, a length of each possible line segment of the plurality of possible line segments, an extending direction of each possible line segment of the plurality of possible line segments, and presence or absence of an intersection between each possible line segment of the plurality of possible line segments and another possible line segment. (See fig. 5A; B)
Re claim 5, Kimura discloses removing noise included in the prediction region information, wherein the line segment is extracted on a basis of the prediction region indicated by the prediction region information from which the noise has been removed. (See fig. 5A; B; ¶ 107-108)
Re claim 6, Kimura discloses performing a closing process for interpolating the prediction region in a binarized image that is the prediction region information, wherein the line segment is extracted on a basis of the prediction region indicated by the binarized image on which the closing process has been performed. (See fig. 1; 3, 5A)
Claims (7, 9-13) are apparatus claim corresponding to method claims (1-2, 4-6). Hence, the steps performed in the method claims would have necessitated the elements in the apparatus claims. Therefore, claims (7, 9-13) have been analyzed and rejected w/r to claims (1-2, 4-6).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Katayama et al (US 6,404,936 B1) disclose a subject image extraction method and apparatus.
Nakamura (US 2008/0267481 A1) discloses a method and apparatus for correcting results of structure recognition.
Yahata (US 2020/0228698 A1) discloses an image processing device that corrects an image.
Contact
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LEON FLORES whose telephone number is (571)270-1201. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am - 6pm.
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.
/LEON FLORES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2676 February 24, 2026