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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment was filed on 7/29/2026.
Claims 1-5, 7, 9, 11-15, and 17-21 are pending. Claim 6, 8, 10, 16, and 22 are canceled.
Response to Arguments
Applicants’ arguments filed under Remarks on pages 8-9 on 7/29/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicants state on pages 8-9 regarding rejections under 35 USC 101 state that:
PNG
media_image1.png
278
805
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
77
787
media_image2.png
Greyscale
The Examiner respectfully disagree. While the examiner understands that the previous claim 6 is being brought into claim 1 (and other independent claims), claim 6 was rejected under 35 USC 101 by applying similar analysis as claim 1 and not having significant more than the judicial exception defined. The rejection stands under 35 USC 101 and explained below.
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks on page 9, filed 7/29/2026, with respect to 35 USC 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection made under 35 USC 103 has been withdrawn.
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 18-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim is NOT directed to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter. The claimed “computer program product” are non-structural per se, and the specification does not exclude the “computer program product” from being software (see paragraphs [0040, 0086, 0090). Therefore, a reasonable interpretation in light of the specification leads to the conclusion that the claim encompasses pure software, which does not fall within the definition of a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter. Please amend these dependent claims to concur with amendment of claim 11 by stating “The computer program product tangibly stored on a non-transitory computer-readable medium according to claim…”.
Claims 1-5, 7, 9, 11-15, and 17-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., abstract idea – mental process) without significantly more. Claim 1 is used as an example. Claims 9 and 11 recite a device and a computer program product stored on a computer readable medium, respectively, having a storage and a processor. The two-part test to identify claims that are directed to a judicial exception (Step 2A) and to then evaluate if additional elements of the claim provide an inventive concept (Step 2B) are:
(1) Are the claims directed to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter;
(2A) Prong One: Are the claims directed to a judicially recognized exception, i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea;
Prong Two: If the claims are directed to a judicial exception under Prong One, then is the judicial exception integrated into a practical application;
(2B) If the claims are directed to a judicial exception and do not integrate the judicial exception, do the claims provide an inventive concept.
Claim 1. (Original) A image description generation method, comprising: (a) obtaining an image comprising a target object; (b) extracting a label feature of the target object, a position feature of the target object in the image, a text feature in the image, and a visual feature of the target object from the image respectively; and (c) generating a natural language description for the image according to the label feature, the position feature, the text feature, the visual feature, and a visual linguistic model, wherein the process of extracting the visual feature of the target object comprises: (d) determining a regional image corresponding to the target object from the image based on position coordinates of the target object in the image; and (e) obtaining the visual feature of the target object according to the regional image corresponding to the target object.[emphasis added].
With regard to (1), the instant claims recite an apparatus and a method, therefore the answer is "yes".
With regard to (2A), Prong One: Yes. When viewed under the broadest most reasonable interpretation, the instant claims are directed to a Judicial Exception – an abstract idea belonging to the group of mental process – concepts that are practicably performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion). The steps of (b) and (c) (above in emphasized claim 1) are generically recited and nothing in these steps precludes the steps from practically being performed by a human equipped with an appropriate apparatus. It can be interpreted as merely looking at the data/image and determining a description of the object in the image, something that defines the object in the image, where it is in the image and some type of label describing the object in the image. There is nothing in the claim that requires more than an operation that a human, armed with the appropriate apparatus, pen and a paper, can not perform. The extracting and generating, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. The step (b) above is further described to have steps (d) and (e), as emphasized above and underlined with amendments. The extracting comprises determining/defining a region/area/ROI that corresponds to the object in the image in order to obtain/determine a visual feature about that region/area/ROI in the image. This can be achieved using pen and paper as described. The claim encompasses the user looking at the object in the image, jotting down the feature, shape, position and description of such shape or an orientation of a section of the image. This way, essentially one can present/output information about the section of an image that represents that information, eventually generating a description of what is happing in the image. Thus, these limitations are a mental process.
With regard to (2A), Prong Two: No. The instant claims do not apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception of (a) “obtaining”, and therefore does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The use of a system/memory/processor to obtain an image (i.e., “data”) at a high level of generality such that said “data” can be used in the operation of the recited judicial exception (the mental step of “obtaining”). Supplying “data” does not provide for “integration” of the abstract idea into a practical application, as said data do not change the way in which said system operates. There are no specifics on how the data is received. This can be interpreted as “visualization”. Even if this step is by a “processor” that may be, for example, a camera. A camera/sensor is well known in the field, and receiving data from a camera/sensor is also well known.
This generic processor limitation is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. In conclusion, the claim as a whole does not provide for “integration” of the abstract idea into a practical application.
The claim is directed to the abstract idea.
With regard to (2B), as discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional element in the claim amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The same analysis applies here, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. The pending claims do not show what is more than a routine in the art presented in the claims, i.e., the additional elements are nothing more than routine and well-known steps. There is no improvement to technology here. There is only steps of (b), (c), (d) and (e) with additional elements of (a), and it has not been shown that the mental process allows the “technology” to do something that it previously was not able to do. The addition of the “wherein” clause does not provide significant more than the judicial exception of the mental process described herein. One can visualize an image of a watch and give text feature, visual feature such as color of the object in the image, label feature such as shape of the object, etc. of what is in that image. From this information, one is able to put the information about what is in the image in a full sentence, describing what is in the image, such as “a watch with a small screen displays red color”, or something similar. Having recited visual linguistic model without any further explanation as to what it is or what the function is in the scope of the claim as a whole, fails to provide integration of the judicial exception into a practical application, and further does not provide significant more than the judicial exception.
Therefore, the claims 1, 9, and 11 are ineligible.
With regard to dependent claims 2-5, 7, 12-15 and 17-21, similar analysis is applied and therefore does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application – does not provide significant more than the judicial exception. “fusing” step is simply putting two data together; and rest of the other limitations of “determining augmentation strategy…”, “extracting positions….”, “extracting text…”, etc. are similarly rejected for the same reasons discussed in view of steps recited in claim 1 and not repeated herewith.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHEFALI D. GORADIA whose telephone number is (571)272-8958. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8AM-6PM, Friday 8AM-12PM.
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.
SHEFALI D. GORADIA
Primary Patent Examiner
Art Unit 2676
/SHEFALI D GORADIA/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2676
Prosecution Insights