CTNF 18/836,860 CTNF 71793 Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 07-04-01 AIA 07-04 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, 6, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a mental process without significantly more. Claims 1, 6, and 11 recite a mental process drawn to analyzing images of a ground view and an aerial view and subsequently extracting features to determine whether the ground view image and the aerial view image match each other. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application and the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Step 1 : This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim falls within any statutory category. See MPEP 2106.03. The claims recite at least one step or act, including acquiring a ground view image, an aerial view image and class information (features) of one or both of the images. Thus, claim 1 is directed to an apparatus, claim 6 a method, and claim 11 a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium (device), which all correspond to one of the statutory categories of invention. (Step 1: Claims fall within a statutory category - YES). Step 2A, Prong One : This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim recites a judicial exception. As explained in MPEP 2106.04, subsection II, a claim “recites” a judicial exception when the judicial exception is “set forth” or “described” in the claim. The broadest reasonable interpretation of comparing ground and aerial images and recognizing similarity between images fall within the mental process groupings of abstract ideas because they cover concepts performed in the human mind, including observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III. Specifically, the claims set forth comparing images ground and aerial images and subsequently comparing the corresponding matching features which may be practically performed in the human mind using observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion. Under its broadest reasonable interpretation when read in light of the specification, the “extracting” and “matching” acts encompass mental processes practically performed in the human mind by observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III. (Step 2A, Prong One: Claims directed to a mental process - YES). Step 2A, Prong Two : This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception or whether the claim is “directed to” the judicial exception. This evaluation is performed by (1) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception, and (2) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.04(d). The claim recites the additional elements of acquiring ground and aerial images. The claims also recite that processing steps are performed by a memory and a programed computer. The obtaining of the various images are mere data gathering and output recited at a high level of generality, and thus are insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g) (“whether the limitation is significant”). In addition, all uses of the recited judicial exceptions require such data gathering and output, and, as such, these limitations do not impose any meaningful limits on the claim. These limitations amount to necessary data gathering and outputting. See MPEP 2106.05. Further, the processing limitations are recited as being performed by a generic computer recited at a high level of generality. Thus, the computer is used as a tool to perform the matching comparisons of the received image data. See MPEP 2106.05(f). As such it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using a generic computer and thus provide nothing more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a generic computer. See MPEP 2106.05(f). MPEP 2106.05(f) provides the following considerations for determining whether a claim simply recites a judicial exception with the words “apply it” (or an equivalent), such as mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer: (1) whether the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished; (2) whether the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process; and (3) the particularity or generality of the application of the judicial exception. The memory and programmed computer are used to generally apply the abstract idea without placing any limits on how the computer functions. Rather, these limitations only recite the outcome of “processing” and do not include any details about how accomplished. See MPEP 2106.05(f). The recitation of ground and aerial images merely indicates a field of use or technological environment in which the judicial exception is performed (i.e. cross-view geo-localization). The additional element of using a computer merely confines the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment and thus fails to add an inventive concept to the claims. See MPEP 2106.05(h). Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application (Step 2A, Prong Two: Integration into a practical application - NO), and the claim is directed to the judicial exception. (Step 2A: YES). Step 2B : This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole amounts to significantly more than the recited exception i.e., whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, adds an inventive concept to the claim. See MPEP 2106.05. As explained with respect to Step 2A, Prong Two, the additional elements are at best mere instructions to “apply” the abstract ideas, which cannot provide an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Obtaining the various images were found to be insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A, Prong Two, because they were determined to be insignificant limitations as necessary data gathering and outputting. However, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extrasolution activity in Step 2A, Prong Two should be re-evaluated in Step 2B. See MPEP 2106.05, subsection I.A. At Step 2B, the evaluation of the insignificant extra-solution activity consideration takes into account whether or not the extra-solution activity is well understood, routine, and conventional in the field. See MPEP 2106.05(g). As discussed in Step 2A, Prong Two above, the obtaining of images is recited at a high level of generality. These elements amount to receiving or transmitting data (images/photographs) over a network and are well understood, routine, conventional activity. See MPEP 2106.05(d), subsection II. 9 As discussed in Step 2A, Prong Two above, the recitation of a generic computer to perform the processing and comparison of images amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Even when considered in combination, these additional elements represent mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer and insignificant extra-solution activity, which do not provide an inventive concept. (Step 2B: Inventive step present - NO). Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 07-07-aia AIA 07-07 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 – 07-08-aia AIA (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. 07-15-aia AIA Claim s 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 a1 as being anticipated by the NPL titled “Geographic Semantic Network for Cross-View Image Geo-Localization” to Zhu et al , hereinafter referred to as “Zhu.” With regard to claim 1, Zhu discloses an image matching apparatus comprising: at least one memory that is configured to store instructions (see bottom left column on page 2); and at least one processor that is configured to execute the instructions to: acquire a ground-view image, an aerial-view image (Fig 3), and class information that indicates a distribution of classes of objects on the ground-view image, the aerial-view image, or both (see section “III Proposed GEONET” where semantic features, i.e. class information are extracted from the ground and aerial images); extract features from the ground-view image to compute a ground image feature; extract features from the aerial-view image to compute an aerial image feature; extract features from the class information to compute a class feature; and determine whether or not the ground-view image and the aerial-view image match each other based on the ground image feature, the aerial image feature, and the class feature (the extracted features of each ground image and aerial image are converted to a feature vector, respectively, via the GEOCAPS layers, which are then compared to determine a matching similarity). With regard to claim 2, Zhu discloses the image matching apparatus according to claim 1 wherein the class information includes a segmented image each of whose pixel indicates the class of the object captured in one or more corresponding pixels of the ground-view image or the aerial-view image (See first full paragraph under “III Proposed GEONET” where 2048 feature maps with a spatial size of 7x7 pixels serve as segmented input). With regard to claim 3, Zhu discloses the image matching apparatus according to claim 1 wherein the class information includes a keyword matrix each of whose element indicates a keyword vector that is assigned to the class of the object captured in one or more corresponding pixels of the ground-view image or the aerial-view image (see the discussion in column 2 on page 5 of the feature vectors used to create a vector representation of the image). With regard to claim 4, Zhu discloses the image matching apparatus according to claim 3 wherein the keyword vectors are defined to represent similarity between classes by distance between the keyword vectors corresponding to those classes (see bottom right column on page 5 and “primary vectors that have strong agreement with senior vectors” where the examiner interprets Zhu’s “agreement” as the claimed “similarity”). With regard to claim 5, Zhu discloses the image matching apparatus according to claim 1 wherein the determination of whether or not the ground-view image and the aerial-view image match each other includes: computing similarity between a ground feature and an aerial feature; and determining that the ground-view image and the aerial-view image match each other when the computed similarity is larger than or equal to a predetermined threshold (i.e. Zhu’s “strong agreement” cited above for claim 4), when the class information includes ground class information that indicates the distribution of classes of objects on the ground-view image, the ground feature is a combination of the ground image feature and the class feature extracted from the ground class information, when the class information includes aerial class information that indicates the distribution of classes of objects on the aerial-view image, the aerial feature is a combination of the aerial image feature and the class feature extracted from the aerial class information (inherent as Zhu extracts features from both the ground view images and the aerial view images). Claims 6 and 11 are rejected for reasoning, mutatis mutandis , as that of claim 1 above. Claims 7 and 12 are rejected for reasoning, mutatis mutandis , as that of claim 2 above. Claims 8 and 13 are rejected for reasoning, mutatis mutandis , as that of claim 3 above. Claims 9 and 14 are rejected for reasoning, mutatis mutandis , as that of claim 4 above. Claims 10 and 15 are rejected for reasoning, mutatis mutandis , as that of claim 5 above . Conclusion 07-96 AIA The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The NPL to Lin et al “Cross-View Image Geolocalization” discloses general state of the art methods of matching ground images with corresponding aerial images taken at the identical geographic location . Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID OMETZ whose telephone number is (571)272-7593. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8am-4pm. 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, Sumati Lefkowitz can be reached at 571-272-3638. 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. DAVID OMETZ Primary Examiner Art Unit 2672 /DAVID OMETZ/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2672 Application/Control Number: 18/836,860 Page 2 Art Unit: 2672 Application/Control Number: 18/836,860 Page 3 Art Unit: 2672 Application/Control Number: 18/836,860 Page 4 Art Unit: 2672 Application/Control Number: 18/836,860 Page 5 Art Unit: 2672 Application/Control Number: 18/836,860 Page 6 Art Unit: 2672 Application/Control Number: 18/836,860 Page 7 Art Unit: 2672 Application/Control Number: 18/836,860 Page 8 Art Unit: 2672 Application/Control Number: 18/836,860 Page 9 Art Unit: 2672
Prosecution Insights