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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d).
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 08/09/2024 is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings filed on: 08/09/2024 are accepted.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “means” or “step” but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
With respect to claim 1: “a correspondence manager that stores …”, “a first output unit that outputs”, “an operation-string acceptor that accepts …”, “an intention-string acquirer that acquires …”, “a second output unit that outputs …”, “an operation unit that performs …”
With respect to claim 2: “the correspondence manager stores …”, “the intention-string acquire acquires …”
With respect to claim 3: “a feature-of-interest determiner that references … to determine …”, “a category acquirer that acquires …”, a target-feature determiner that determines …”, “ the operation unit performs …”.
With respect to claim 4: “the operation unit performs …”.
With respect to claim 5: “the operation unit changes …”
With respect to claim 6: “an image determiner that acquires …”
With respect to claim 7: “the image determiner determines …”, “the operation unit performs …”.
With respect to claim 9: “the correspondence manager storing …”, “the first output unit to output ..”, “… the operation-string acceptor to accept …”, “the intention -string acquirer to acquire …”. “… the second output unit to output …”, “… the operation unit to perform …”.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant intends to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
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.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because :
With regards to claim 10, it recites “a recording medium” , however the recording medium is not defined in the specification and can be interpreted to encompass transitory media/signals-per-se. Since ‘signals-per-se’ are not statutory the claim is not statutory. See MPEP 2106 below:
“Non-limiting examples of claims that are not directed to any of the statutory categories include:
Transitory forms of signal transmission (often referred to as "signals per se"), such as a propagating electrical or electromagnetic signal or carrier wave.
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 1 Analysis:
101 Analysis Step 2A, Prong One
Claim 1 recites the following limitations (of which bolded limitations constitute a ‘mental process’ that covers performance of the limitations in the human mind).
An image processing apparatus comprising: a correspondence manager that stores two or more pieces of correspondence information each indicating a correspondence between an operation-string definition and an intention identifier, the operation-string definition defining a set of operation identifiers that correspond respectively to two or more operations, the intention identifier identifying an intention of the two or more operations; a first output unit that outputs an image associated with positional information as a first image; an operation-string acceptor that accepts input of an operation string that is a set of operation identifiers that respectively identify two or more operations performed on the first image; an intention-string acquirer that acquires an intention string from the correspondence manager, the intention string being a set of intention identifiers that correspond respectively to one or more operation-string definitions that match the operation string accepted by the operation-string acceptor; a second output unit that outputs a second image; and an operation unit that performs one or more operations on the second image, the one or more operations satisfying the operation-string definition corresponding to the intention string acquired by the intention-string acquirer.
As a note, steps fall within the mental process groupings of abstract ideas because they cover concepts performed in the human mind, including observation, evaluation, judgement and opinion (See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III).
With respect to the particular limitations that were bolded above, these steps can be practically performed in the human mind using observation, evaluation , judgment and/or opinion. For example the particular limitations encompass: 1) evaluating two or more operations and based upon evaluation, making a judgment to define a set of operation identifiers, and 2) evaluating the operation string definition corresponding to the intention string and making a judgment to manually perform one or more operations.
101 Analysis Step 2A, Prong Two
With regards to the following additional elements of
‘… an image processing apparatus comprising: a correspondence manager that stores two or more pieces of correspondence information each indicating a correspondence between an operation-string definition and an intention identifier, the operation-string definition …”, and .. “ an operation unit that performs”; these elements are considered to encompass a generic computer (and its components/functions ) that is used as a tool to perform generic computer functions/operations such that they amount to no more than mere instructions/operations to apply the exception using the generic computer. Applying or using the judicial exception on a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea have been identified by the courts as insufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
“a first output unit that outputs an image associated with positional information as a first image”, and “second output unit that outputs a second image”; these elements are considered to encompass adding an insignificant extra solution activity to the judicial exception. More specifically , the insignificant extra solution activity encompasses ‘selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated’ (see MPEP 2106.05(g): “iii. Selecting information, based on types of information and availability of information in a power-grid environment, for collection, analysis and display, Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354-55, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016)”). The courts have identified these types of limitations as insufficient to integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.
“an operation-string acceptor that accepts input of an operation string that is a set of operation identifiers that respectively identify two or more operations performed on the first image; an intention-string acquirer that acquires an intention string from the correspondence manager, the intention string being a set of intention identifiers that correspond respectively to one or more operation-string definitions that match the operation string accepted by the operation-string acceptor”, and “… acquired by the intention-string acquirer”; these elements are considered to encompass adding an insignificant extra solution activity to the judicial exception. More specifically , the insignificant extra solution activity encompasses ‘Mere Data Gathering’ (see MPEP 2106.05(g): “iv. Obtaining information about transactions using the Internet to verify credit card transactions, CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1694 (Fed. Cir. 2011)”. The courts have identified these types of limitations as insufficient to integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.
101 Analysis Step 2B:
The claim does not amount to significantly more than the recited exception
With regards to the following additional elements of
‘… an image processing apparatus comprising: a correspondence manager that stores two or more pieces of correspondence information each indicating a correspondence between an operation-string definition and an intention identifier, the operation-string definition …”, and .. “ an operation unit that performs”; these elements are considered to encompass a generic computer (and its components/functions ) that is used as a tool to perform generic computer functions/operations such that they amount to no more than mere instructions/operations to apply the exception using the generic computer. Applying or using the judicial exception on a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, have been identified by the courts as insufficient to qualify as ‘significantly more’ when recited in a claim with a judicial exception.
“a first output unit that outputs an image associated with positional information as a first image”, and “second output unit that outputs a second image”; these elements are considered to encompass adding an insignificant extra solution activity to the judicial exception. More specifically , the insignificant extra solution activity encompasses ‘selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated’ (see MPEP 2106.05(g): “iii. Selecting information, based on types of information and availability of information in a power-grid environment, for collection, analysis and display, Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354-55, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016)”). The courts have identified these types of limitations as insufficient to qualify as ‘significantly more’ when recited in a claim with a judicial exception.
“an operation-string acceptor that accepts input of an operation string that is a set of operation identifiers that respectively identify two or more operations performed on the first image; an intention-string acquirer that acquires an intention string from the correspondence manager, the intention string being a set of intention identifiers that correspond respectively to one or more operation-string definitions that match the operation string accepted by the operation-string acceptor”, and “… acquired by the intention-string acquirer”; these elements are considered to encompass adding an insignificant extra solution activity to the judicial exception. More specifically , the insignificant extra solution activity encompasses ‘Mere Data Gathering’ (see MPEP 2106.05(g): “iv. Obtaining information about transactions using the Internet to verify credit card transactions, CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1694 (Fed. Cir. 2011)”. The courts have identified these types of limitations as insufficient to qualify as ‘significantly more’ when recited in a claim with a judicial exception.
101 Analysis for claims 2-8
Dependent claims 2-8 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claims to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of dependent claims are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application nor amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (due to further limitations that are associated with either applying a computer to perform the judicial exception (‘performing’/’perform(s) using a computer/unit), data collection /gathering (acquir(ing)/acquir(es), or data manipulation (image output)). Therefore, dependent claims 2-8 are not patent eligible under the same rationale as claim 1.
101 Analysis for claim 9:
Claim 9 is rejected under similar rationale as claim 1.
101 Analysis for claim 10:
Claim 10 is rejected under similar rationale as claim 1. It is noted that it additionally recites the element of ‘recording medium for use in a computer .. the recording medium having recorded thereon a program for causing …’; for which, this additional element is considered to encompass a generic computer (and its components/functions ) that is used as a tool to perform generic computer functions/operations such that they amount to no more than mere instructions/operations to apply the exception using the generic computer. Applying or using the judicial exception on a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea have been identified by the courts as insufficient to be considered as integrating the judicial exception into a practical application and also insufficient to qualify as ‘significantly more’ when recited in a claim with a judicial exception.
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 1-10 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.
With regards to claim 1, the claim recites “… accepts input of an operation string that is a set of operation identifiers that respectively identify two or more operations performed on the first image …” and then “acquiring …. The intention string being a set of intention identifiers that correspond respectively to one or more operation string definitions that match the operation string …”. Yet although earlier in the claim, there is a correspondence manager “storing two or more pieces of correspondence information each indicating a correspondence between an operation-string definition … the operation string definition defining A set of operation identifiers”, the intention string being acquired does not reference THE set of operation identifiers. Thus it is unclear if the applicant is intending to reference stored SET information referenced in the ‘correspondence manager’ limitation. For purposes of examination , the examiner will assume that the applicant intended to reference THE set of operation identifiers
Also in the ‘intention-string acquirer’ limitation, it recites “one or more operation string definitions”, however the ’correspondence manager’ limitation only mentions a single operation string definition. It is unclear if “one or more operation string definitions” are intended to refer/reference a string definition in the ‘correspondence manager’ limitation since it is unclear if ‘correspondence information’ in the ‘correspondence manager’ limitation would each indicate a unique operation string identifier and also each would reference their own unique two or more operations. For purposes of examination the examiner will assume there are two correspondence information and each have their own unique string identifier and each would reference their own two unique operations.
Lastly in the claim, it recites “the one or more operations ‘satisfying’ the operation-string definition corresponding to the intention string acquired by the intention-string acquirer’. However the term ‘satisfying’ is a relative term, and the claim does not recite any earlier step to determine how the definition would be considered ‘satisfied’. For purposes of examination the examiner will assume ‘satisfied’ as a check for a relationship between the operation string definition and intention string had been performed (regardless of outcome of the ‘check’). Should the applicant have intended ‘satisfying’ to be correlating to an earlier ‘match’ operation, the examiner further points out there is no ‘match’ step performed in the claim, only that information acquired (past tense) contains a matched operation string.
With regards to claims 2-9, they depend upon claim 1, and since they depend upon the deficient subject matter in claim 1 (and do not resolve the issues of claim 1), they are rejected under similar rationale as claim 1.
With regards to claims 9 and 10, they are each rejected under similar rationale as claim 1 above.
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, 8, 9 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kimura et al (US Application: US 2016/0080643, published: Mar. 17, 2016, filed: Mar. 10, 2014).
With regards to claim 1, Kimura et al teaches an image processing apparatus (Fig 2, paragraph 0113: a processing device for capture is implemented with a storage unit and controller/processor) : a correspondence manager that stores two or more pieces of correspondence information each indicating a correspondence between an operation-string definition and an intention identifier, the operation-string definition defining a set of operation identifiers that correspond respectively to two or more operations, the intention identifier identifying an intention of the two or more operations (paragraph 0067, Fig 9: a storage of operations/settings are associated with reference image and each reference image is associated with a score/intent-string);
a first output unit that outputs an image associated with positional information as a first image (a reference image is displayed to the user (Fig. 10));
an operation-string acceptor that accepts input of an operation string that is a set of operation identifiers that respectively identify two or more operations performed on the first image (Fig. 10: a user provides selection/identification of a reference image (operation string) and reference identifier is associated with a plurality of image/shooting operations. The operations are performed on the image and the user makes a capture/store of the image and furthermore, a score is updated for the reference image);
an intention-string acquirer that acquires an intention string from the correspondence manager, the intention string being a set of intention identifiers that correspond respectively to one or more operation-string definitions that match the operation string accepted by the operation-string acceptor (Fig. 9: the reference image identifier can be acquired for a subsequent photo that is to be taken should another user take a picture for a particular reference image/’shot image’ and each reference image/’shot image’ is associated with an intent score (interpreted as intent string));
a second output unit that outputs a second image (Fig. 10: the camera could display another image /scene and the user could proceed through same process to select a reference image (having updated intent score));
and an operation unit that performs one or more operations on the second image, the one or more operations satisfying the operation-string definition corresponding to the intention string acquired by the intention-string acquirer (Fig. 9: the same operations applied to the capture of earlier image are used for applying to capture of second image).
With regards to Claim 8, which depends on claim 1, Kimura et al teaches wherein the first image and the second image are each one of street view imagery, a three-dimensional image, an indoor image, and a drive recorder image (paragraph 0067: an outdoor ( street type) view of a subject such as ‘Tokyo Tower’ or ‘Eiffel tower’ can be a type of subject of the first and second images ).
With regards to claim 9, Kimura et al teaches an image processing method realized by a correspondence manager, a first output unit, an operation-string acceptor, an intention-string acquirer, a second output unit, and an operation unit, the correspondence manager storing two or more pieces of correspondence information each indicating a correspondence between an operation-string definition and an intention identifier, the operation-string definition defining a set of operation identifiers that correspond respectively to two or more operations, the intention identifier identifying an intention of the two or more operations, the image processing method comprising: causing the first output unit to output an image associated with positional information as a first image; causing the operation-string acceptor to accept input of an operation string that is a set of operation identifiers that respectively identify two or more operations performed on the first image; causing the intention-string acquirer to acquire an intention string from the correspondence manager, the intention string being a set of intention identifiers that correspond respectively to one or more operation-string definitions that match the operation string accepted by the operation-string acceptor; causing the second output unit to output a second image; and causing the operation unit to perform one or more operations on the second image, the one or more operations satisfying the operation-string definition that corresponds to the intention string acquired by the intention-string acquirer, as similarly explained in the rejection of claim 1, and is rejected under similar rationale.
With regards to claim 10, Kimura et al teaches a recording medium for use in a computer capable of accessing a correspondence manager that stores two or more pieces of correspondence information each indicating a correspondence between an operation-string definition and an intention identifier, the operation-string definition defining a set of operation identifiers that correspond respectively to two or more operations, the intention identifier identifying an intention of the two or more operations, the recording medium having recorded thereon a program for causing the computer to function as: a first output unit that outputs an image associated with positional information as a first image; an operation-string acceptor that accepts input of an operation string that is a set of operation identifiers that respectively identify two or more operations performed on the first image; an intention-string acquirer that acquires an intention string from the correspondence manager, the intention string being a set of intention identifiers that correspond respectively to one or more operation-string definitions that match the operation string accepted by the operation-string acceptor; a second output unit that outputs a second image; and an operation unit that performs one or more operations on the second image, the one or more operations satisfying the operation-string definition that corresponds to the intention string acquired by the intention-string acquirer, as similarly explained in the rejection of claim 1, and is rejected under similar rationale.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Vincent et al (US Patent: 7990394): This reference teaches displaying a viewport having an overlay with an image and changing overlay orientation to match orientation of the image.
Frankel et al (US Application: US 20160357410): This reference teaches displaying viewpoints from a point of interest and linking to a view of scene from a point of interest.
Singer (US Application: 20140129949): This reference teaches providing content based on location data.
Parulski et al (US Application: US 20090284637): This reference teaches capturing a scene and referencing parameters of the scene to match against suggested capture configurations.
Baldwin et al (US Application: US 20190058826): This reference teaches multi camera post capture image processing.
Kim et al (US Application: US 2015/0235398): This reference teaches determining an image capture location based on location of interest and determining image capture direction based on the location.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILSON W TSUI whose telephone number is (571)272-7596. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9 am -6 pm.
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, Adam Queler can be reached at (571) 272-4140. 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.
/WILSON W TSUI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2172
Prosecution Insights