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
Claims 1-34 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) a method for optimizing data from an image set of an object in an observation apparatus. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the steps do not add meaningful limitations to be considered specifically applied to a particular technological problem to be solved. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the steps of the claimed invention can be done mentally.
According to the USPTO guidelines, a claim is directed to non-statutory subject matter if:
STEP 1: the claim does not fall within one of the four statutory categories of invention (process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter), or
STEP 2: the claim recites a judicial exception, e.g. an abstract idea, without reciting additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, as determined using the following analysis:
STEP 2A (PRONG 1): Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
STEP 2A (PRONG 2): Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
STEP 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
Using the two-step inquiry, it is clear that claims 1-34 are directed to an abstract idea as shown below:
STEP 1: Do the claims fall within one of the statutory categories? YES. Claim(s) 1-34 are directed to a method.
STEP 2A (PRONG 1): Is the claim directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon or an abstract idea? YES , the claims are directed toward a mental process (i.e. abstract idea).
With regard to STEP 2A (PRONG 1), the guidelines provide three groupings of subject matter that are considered abstract ideas:
Mathematical concepts — mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations;
Certain methods of organizing human activity — fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions); and
Mental processes — concepts that are practicably performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion).
The method in claims 1-34 comprise a mental process that can be practicably performed in the human mind and, therefore, an abstract idea.
Regarding independent claims 1 and 31:
“detecting, by a processing unit, a predetermined event based on second data, wherein the second data is associated with the image set of the object” (insignificant extra solution activity of data gathering and a mental process including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion, can be done mentally in the human mind by evaluating the image data to identify image quality or other visible issues); and
“determining, by the processing unit, an execution of an instruction based on the predetermined event, wherein the instruction comprises a reconfiguration message which reconfigures the at least one parameter of the observation apparatus corresponding to the execution of the instruction” (mental process including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion, can be done mentally in the human mind by evaluating the image to identify image quality and change parameters of a camera to adjust the image quality).
STEP 2A (PRONG 2): Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? NO, the claims do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
With regard to STEP 2A (prong 2), whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, the guidelines provide the following exemplary considerations that are indicative that an additional element (or combination of elements) may have integrated the judicial exception into a practical application:
an additional element reflects an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field;
an additional element that applies or uses a judicial exception to affect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition;
an additional element implements a judicial exception with, or uses a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim;
an additional element effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; and
an additional element applies or uses the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
While the guidelines further state that the exemplary considerations are not an exhaustive list and that there may be other examples of integrating the exception into a practical application, the guidelines also list examples in which a judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application:
an additional element merely recites the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely includes instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea;
an additional element adds insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception; and
an additional element does no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
Claim(s) 1 and 31 do not recite any of the exemplary considerations that are indicative of an abstract idea having been integrated into a practical application as generic computer components can perform the steps.
STEP 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? NO, the claims do not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
With regard to STEP 2B, whether the claims recite additional elements that provide significantly more than the recited judicial exception, the guidelines specify that the pre-guideline procedure is still in effect. Specifically, that examiners should continue to consider whether an additional element or combination of elements:
adds a specific limitation or combination of limitations that are not well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field, which is indicative that an inventive concept may be present; or simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, which is indicative that an inventive concept may not be present.
Claim(s) 1 and 31 does/do not recite any additional elements that are not well-understood, routine or conventional. The use of a processing unit for executing and processing, as claimed in Claim(s) 1 and 31 is a routine, well-understood and conventional process that is performed by computers.
Thus, since Claim(s) 1 and 31 is/are: (a) directed toward an abstract idea, (b) do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, and (c) do not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, it is clear that Claim(s) 1 and 31 is/are not eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C 101.
Regarding claims 2-30 and 32-34, the additional limitations do not integrate the mathematical concepts into a practical application or add significantly more.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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) 1-6, 17-21, 23-24, 26, and 29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kozachenok et al. (US 2021/0329892).
Regarding claim 1, Kozachenok discloses a method for optimizing first data from an image set of an object observed in an observation apparatus by reconfiguring at least one parameter of the observation apparatus, wherein the observation apparatus comprises an image sensor above a water surface (paras 43 and 80, the camera can be located above the water line), wherein the image set of the object is captured by the image sensor, the method comprising:
detecting, by a processing unit, a predetermined event based on second data, wherein the second data is associated with the image set of the object (see paras 46-49, 64-66, and 84, one or more cameras 102 capture images of objects, fish or feed, and determine things such as image quality, turbidity, presence/absence of an object, object size, etc.); and
determining, by the processing unit, an execution of an instruction based on the predetermined event, wherein the instruction comprises a reconfiguration message which reconfigures the at least one parameter of the observation apparatus corresponding to the execution of the instruction (see paras 12, 22-23, 32, 64-66, 77-79, and 87-88, based on such things as image quality, dynamic reconfiguring of intrinsic parameters can be adjusted to increase image quality).
Regarding claim 2, Kozachenok further discloses wherein the predetermined event is whether an image quality associated with the image set of the object is less than a predetermined criterion (see para 64, based on a predetermined image quality threshold, dynamic reconfiguring of intrinsic parameters can be adjusted to increase image quality).
Regarding claim 3, Kozachenok further discloses wherein the predetermined event is to what degree an image quality associated with the image set of the object becomes good, wherein the instruction is whether to activate an image quality enhancement mechanism (see paras 64-66, 77, 84, and 87, based on a predetermined image quality threshold, dynamic reconfiguring of intrinsic parameters can be adjusted to increase image quality).
Regarding claim 4, Kozachenok further discloses wherein the predetermined event is to what degree an image quality associated with the image set becomes good, wherein the instruction is reconfiguring the at least one parameter of the observation apparatus (see paras 64-66, 77, 84, and 87, based on a predetermined image quality threshold, dynamic reconfiguring of intrinsic parameters can be adjusted to increase image quality).
Regarding claim 5, Kozachenok further discloses wherein the observation apparatus further comprises a carrier carrying the object, wherein the at least one parameter of the observation apparatus comprises at least one of a brightness of a light source of the image sensor, a capturing angle of the image sensor, a magnification of the image sensor, a pixel number to capture the image set of the object and a distance between the carrier and the image sensor (see paras 15, 65-66, 73, and 75, a marine enclosure 108, such as a fish tank carries the fish, a brightness parameter can be adjusted).
Regarding claim 6, Kozachenok further discloses wherein the image set of the object has a first pixel number, wherein the image set of the object comprises a plurality of image portions, wherein each of the plurality of image portions is captured by the image sensor having a second pixel number, wherein the first pixel number is associated with a number of the plurality of image portions, wherein the predetermined event is a size of the object, wherein the instruction is reconfiguring the number of the plurality of image portions (see paras 37-38, 46-47, 58, 65. 80-81, and 89-91, each and every pixel of an object is detected and classified, pixel number is analogous to resolution or image quality, as such, based on an object size, dynamic reconfiguring of intrinsic parameters can be adjusted).
Regarding claim 17, Kozachenok further discloses wherein the observation apparatus further comprises a carrier carrying the object, wherein the predetermined event is an optical event associated with the carrier, wherein the instruction is reconfiguring the at least one parameter of the observation apparatus (see paras 15, 65-66, 73, and 75, a marine enclosure 108, such as a fish tank carries the fish, a brightness parameter can be adjusted).
Regarding claim 18, Kozachenok further discloses wherein the optical event associated with the carrier is a degree of a dirtiness of the carrier (see paras 23, 31, 45, 48-49, 60, and 83, sensor system 102 can detect turbidity, the measure of the degree to which water changes in level of its transparency due to the presence of suspended particles, which is analogous to the degree of dirtiness).
Regarding claim 19, Kozachenok further discloses wherein the optical event associated with the carrier is a degree of an overlap of the object on the carrier and a dirty region of the carrier (see paras 23, 31, 40, 45, 48-49, 60, and 83, sensor system 102 can be made up of a plurality of cameras with overlapping fields of view, at least on sensor can detect turbidity, the measure of the degree to which water changes in level of its transparency due to the presence of suspended particles, which is analogous to the degree of dirtiness).
Regarding claim 20, Kozachenok further discloses wherein the optical event associated with the carrier is a degree of water stagnancy on the carrier (see paras 23, 31, 45, 48, and 68, water current can be detected, a lack of water current is the same as stagnancy).
Regarding claim 21, Kozachenok further discloses wherein the optical event associated with the carrier is a degree of an overlap of the object on the carrier and water stagnancy on the carrier (see paras 23, 31, 40, 45, 48-49, 60, 68, and 83, sensor system 102 can be made up of a plurality of cameras with overlapping fields of view, at least on sensor can detect water current, a lack of water current is the same as stagnancy).
Regarding claim 23, Kozachenok further discloses wherein the predetermined event is an optical event associated with the object, wherein the instruction is reconfiguring the at least one parameter of the observation apparatus (see paras 23, 31, 45, 48-49, 60, and 83, sensor system 102 can detect turbidity, the measure of the degree to which water changes in level of its transparency due to the presence of suspended particles, which is analogous to the degree of dirtiness, dynamic reconfiguring of intrinsic parameters can be adjusted to increase image quality).
Regarding claim 24, Kozachenok further discloses wherein the observation apparatus further comprises a carrier carrying the object, wherein the optical event associated with the object is a degree of water stagnancy on the object on the carrier (see paras 15, 23, 31, 45, 48, and 68, a marine enclosure 108, such as a fish tank carries the fish, water current can be detected by sensor system 102, a lack of water current is the same as stagnancy).
Regarding claim 26, Kozachenok further discloses wherein the at least one parameter of the observation apparatus comprises at least one of a brightness of a light source of the image sensor, a capturing angle of the image sensor, a magnification of the image sensor, a pixel number to capture the image set of the object and a distance between the carrier and the image sensor (see paras 65-66, 73, and 75, a brightness parameter can be adjusted.
Regarding claim 29, Kozachenok further discloses wherein the observation apparatus further comprises a carrier carrying the object, wherein the predetermined event is an optical event set comprising a first optical event associated with the carrier and a second optical event associated with the object, wherein the instruction is reconfiguring the at least one parameter of the observation apparatus (see paras 15, 65-66, 73, and 75, a marine enclosure 108, such as a fish tank carries the fish, a brightness parameter can be adjusted).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 31-34 would be allowable if amended to overcome the 35 USC 101 rejection set forth above.
Claims 7-16, 22, 25, 27-28, and 30 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
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. To further show the state of the art please refer to the attached Notice of References Cited.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARK R MILIA whose telephone number is (571) 272-7408. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8am-5pm.
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, Akwasi Sarpong can be reached at 571-270-3438. The fax 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.
/MARK R MILIA/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2681
Prosecution Insights