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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 01/02/2026 has been entered.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-19, and 24 are currently pending and have been examined in this Final Rejection. Claims 1, 2, 8, 12, 13, and 14 have been amended.
Priority
Application 18/838,663 filed 08/15/2024 claims priority to 371 of PCT/CN2022/113608 filed 08/19/2022, and CN202210148355.X filed 02/17/2022.
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 1-19 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claims 1-19 and 24 are directed to a system, method, or product which are/is one of the statutory categories of invention. (Step 1: YES).
Claims 1, 12, and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites a method for verifying the authenticity of a merchant based on street view images. For Claims 1, 12, and 24 the limitations of (Claim 1 being representative):
calculating a translation scale based on a pair of randomly selected reference images I1 and I2 containing a common area and a distance between respective shooting positions of the reference images I1 and I2, where the translation scale is used to translate coordinates of an image acquisition point;
obtaining, based on merchant location information obtained from the merchant information platform, a first street view image corresponding to the merchant location information from the street view image system, and conducting a feature point matching between the merchant storefront image obtained from the merchant information platform and the first street view image, and translating the first street view image along a road direction based on the translation scale to obtain coordinates of the image acquisition point;
obtaining, based on the coordinates of the image acquisition point, a second street view image corresponding to the coordinates of the image acquisition point […];
cropping a portion of image from the second street view image to obtain a third street view image;
conducting a feature point matching between the merchant storefront image obtained from the merchant information platform and the third street view image to calculate merchant image similarity, and determining whether the merchant image similarity reaches a specified threshold, where in the case that it is determined that the merchant image similarity reaches the specified threshold, proceed with the following steps; and
recognizing a merchant name from the third street view image and matching it with the merchant name obtained from the merchant information platform to calculate merchant name similarity, and determining whether the merchant name similarity reaches a specified threshold, where in the case that the merchant name similarity reaches the specified threshold, merchant authenticity verification is successful.
The above limitations are reciting the concept of verifying the authenticity of a merchant based on the location, name, storefront image from a platform, and street view images to verify that there are no discrepancies between registered information. This is being done to ensure business information is not mixed or misreported. The claim elements that define the abstract idea are considered to be a certain method of organizing human activities. Merchant authenticity is a process by which one can mitigate risk. Mitigating risk using data related to the merchant location is a concept that falls into the category of being a certain method of organizing human activities. A human being can look at different photos, crop and cut images, and determine if the images match to the actual merchant location. For the above reasons, the above noted claimed elements are considered to be reciting a certain method of organizing human activities that is reciting the act of risk mitigation. The steps are being taken to verify a merchant photo and location to ensure that they are not forged, and are what defines the abstract idea.
Additionally, the examiner notes that for the claimed steps/functions that define the abstract idea, a human being can look at photos and determine if they match a store front image and address location. A human being such as a customer or employee of the merchant can stand in front of the merchant and look at photos, cut printed photos to only show the merchant, and verify a match. Absent the recitation to the use of a computer in the form of the reading and viewing system, the claimed step/functions can be performed by a person, and would constitute claiming human activity, A person can also manually verify a location of a merchant based off of photos, and location. The claimed elements that define the abstract idea are defining human activity. Accordingly, Claims 1, 12, and 24 recite an abstract idea. (Step 2A- Prong 1: YES. The claims recite an abstract idea).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Claim 1 recites the additional elements of a street view image system (Claim 1, Claim 12, and Claim 24), A computer-readable medium storing a computer program (Claim 24), and processor (Claim 12, and Claim 24), that implements the identified abstract idea. These additional elements are not described by the applicant and are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., one or more generic computers performing a generic computer functions) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer components. Accordingly, even in combination these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Claims 1, and 12, are directed to an abstract idea. (Step 2A-Prong 2: NO: the additional claimed elements are not integrated into a practical application).
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional a street view image system (Claim 1, Claim 12, and Claim 24), A computer-readable medium storing a computer program (Claim 24), and processor (Claim 12, and Claim 24), to perform the noted steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept (“significantly more”). Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not provide significantly more. As such claims 1, 12, and 24 are not patent eligible. (Step 2B: NO. The claims do not provide significantly more).
Dependent Claims 2-11, and 13-19 are similarly rejected and as drafted, are processes that, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, further define/narrow the abstract idea of independent claims 1, 12, and 24 as discussed above, as well as representing mathematical concepts. The Examiner notes that “Mathematical Concepts” includes mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a numerical formula or equation it will be considered as falling within the “mathematical concepts” grouping. In addition, there are instances where a formula or equation is written in text format that should also be considered as falling within this grouping. The types of identified abstract ideas are considered together as a single abstract idea for analysis purposes. Claim(s) 2, and 14 merely describe(s) the reference images I1 and I2 containing a calibration point and calculating the translation scale based on two reference images. Claim(s) 3 and 15 merely describe(s) obtaining a search range if the image acquisition point from the merchant location from a merchant information platform. Claim(s) 4, and 16 merely describe(s) translating the first street view image along the road direction to obtain the coordinates of the image acquisition point and determining if the coordinates are within the search range of the image acquisition point. Claim(s) 5, and 17 merely describe(s) obtaining latitude and longitude range and merchant list corresponding to the merchant location information platform, where the search range is represented as (min (cxi), min (cyi)) to (max (cxi), max (cyi)), claim(s) 6, and 18 merely describe(s) setting shooting position of the first street view image to be (sx, sy), obtaining a matching feature point set P={p1, p2,…, pn} from the merchant storefront image and first street view image, where pi is the horizonal coordinate of the matching feature point, calculating a mean value L of the differences between a center position, f of the merchant storefront image and the matching feature point set P in the case that the number of feature points n in the matching feature point set P is greater than a threshold m, and setting L as the minimum movement distance I in the case that n is less than the threshold m, and setting L as the minimum movement distance I in the case that n is less than the threshold m; and setting coordinates of the image acquisition point as N, where N is (sx+Lkcos (t), sy+kLsin (t)),wherein, k is the translation scale, and t is an included angle between street direction and longitude line, where the included angle t is represented by the following equation: t=argtan ((mean (cxi) - min (cxi))/mean (cyi) - min (cyi))). Claim(s) 7, 9 and 19 merely describe(s) the feature matching algorithm including a SIFT algorithm, SURF algorithm, SIFT algorithm, ORB algorithm, FAST algorithm, or Harri algorithm. Claim(s) 8 merely describe(s) cropping a portion of the image from the second street view image to obtain a third street view image by obtaining a matching feature point set Q= {(qx1, qy1), (qx2, qy2), ..., (qxn, qyn)} from the merchant storefront image and the second street view image, where (qxi, qyi) are horizontal and vertical coordinates of the matching feature point; and cropping a portion of image from the second street view image to obtain the third street view image in the way so that upper left and lower right coordinates of the third street view image are:{(min (qxi) - a, min (qyi) - a), (max (qxi)+a, max (qyi)+a)}, where a is a pixel distance, with a value range of 10-100. Therefore claims 2-11, and 13-19 are considered patent ineligible for the reasons given above.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 01/02/2026 with respect to 35 U.S.C. § 101, have been fully considered, but are not persuasive. The Applicant argues that claims recite technical solutions of technical problems by specifying that calculating a translation scale is based on a given reference image pair of randomly selected reference images I1 and I2 containing a common area and a distance respective shooting positions of the reference images I2 and I2 and that it is necessary to calculate the translation scale and the proportional scale between the pixel movement distance in the image and actual movement distance for each street. Further the Applicant argues that the technical problem solved is improving the accuracy of image matching by cropping the street view image S2 from the street view image S1 to filter out redundant images other than key features. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The calculation of a translation scale, and image cropping that the Applicant argues does not recite a technical solution to a technical problem. Here, the Applicant’s argued problem is not a technological problem caused by the technological environment to which the claims are confined (computing system). The additional elements of the street view image system, and processor are recited at a high level of generality and do not amount to a practical application that integrates the abstract idea into a specific technical improvement in computer functionality or another technology. The claimed features do not reflect an improvement to the technology used to capture or process the data, but rather use that technology as a tool to merely perform the abstract analysis (apply it). Therefore, the claims do not recite significantly more since there is no technical architecture that would amount to a practical application/significantly more, only high-level instructions of merchant verification through street view images. The claim does not recite any technical improvement in image processing, but rather uses the additional elements to perform the abstract concept of verifying a merchant through image analysis. Further, the problem of image accuracy was not a problem caused by the computer/street view image system involved in the process. At best, the problem(s) described in the a-filed disclosure are business problems. Based on the updated rejection above and the response presented here, the 101 rejection holds.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Emily M Kraisinger whose telephone number is (703)756-4583. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30 AM -4:30 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, Jessica Lemieux can be reached at 571-270-3445. 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.
/E.M.K./Examiner, Art Unit 3626
/JESSICA LEMIEUX/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3626