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
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 1-11 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Re claim 1
The limitation of estimate a position of a feature point of an input image, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, “estimate” in the context of this claim encompasses the user mentally estimating the position of the feature point.
The limitation of assist a user's input for designating a position of a feature point of the input image on a basis of estimated position, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation and a position designated by the input, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, “assisting a user” in the context of this claim encompasses the user mentally determining how to assist a user and explain to the user how select the feature points.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites additional elements – at least one memory storing instructions; and at least one processor configured to execute the instructions to perform the abstract idea. The processor and memory in both steps is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor and memory performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. 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. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does 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 element of using a processor and memory to perform the abstract idea amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible
Re claim 2 the limitation of assist the input by displaying an estimated position prior to the user's input, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, “displaying” in the context of this claim encompasses the user mentally determining the position and pointing to the estimated position on the image.
Re claim 3 the limitation of the limitation of not display an estimated position prior to the user's input and assist the input by evaluating the input on a basis of a position designated by the user's input and an estimated position, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, “not display” and “assist by evaluating” in the context of this claim encompasses the user not displaying does not require any action and assist by evaluating encompasses the user mentally performing of evaluation.
Re claim 4 the limitation of assist by outputting a warning on a basis of a magnitude of a deviation between a position designated by the user's input and an estimated position, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, “outputting a warning ” in the context of this claim encompasses the user mentally determining a warning and speaking the warner.
Re claim 5 the limitation of estimate positions of a plurality of feature points of the input image together with an order of feature points assist designation of positions of feature points by the user according to the order, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, estimate and assist in the context of this claim encompasses the user mentally performing estimation and assistance in a particular order.
Re claim 6 the limitation of assist by displaying an estimated position of each feature point and an order of each feature point on the input image, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, “displaying an estimated potion” in the context of this claim encompasses the user mentally estimating the position and pointing to the feature points in an order.
Re claim 7 the limitation of assist by outputting a warning on a basis of a difference between an estimated order and an order of designation of positions of feature points by the user, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, “outputting a warning” in the context of this claim encompasses the user mentally determining a warning and verbally outputting it.
Re claim 8 the limitation of estimate a position of a feature point of the input image using a model learned in advance and perform learning model again by using a combination of the input image and a position designated by the user's input as training data, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, estimate using a model learned in advance and performing learning in the context of this claim encompasses the user estimating using a mental model and mentally performing learning.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites additional elements – at least one memory storing instructions; and at least one processor configured to execute the instructions to perform the abstract idea and a machine learning model and perform machine learning of the machine learning model. The processor and memory in both steps is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor and memory performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. The machine learning model performing machine learning as claimed in a generic machine learning model performing a generic function. This does little more limit the claim to the field of machine learning. 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. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does 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 element of using a processor and memory to perform the abstract idea amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. The machine learning model performing machine learning as claimed in a generic machine learning model performing a generic function. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component with a generic machine learning model cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible
Re claim 9 the limitation of wherein the input image is a face image, and the feature point is a feature point of a face, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, wherein the input image is a face image, and the feature point is a feature point of a face in the context of this claim encompasses the user mentally performing estimation and assistance based on a face image.
Re claim 10
The limitation of estimate a position of a feature point of an input image, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, “estimate” in the context of this claim encompasses the user mentally estimating the position of the feature point.
The limitation of assist a user's input for designating a position of a feature point of the input image on a basis of estimated position, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation and a position designated by the input, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, “assisting a user” in the context of this claim encompasses the user mentally determining how to assist a user and explain to the user how select the feature points.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
The claim does not contain features which integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or amount to significantly more that the abstract idea because the claim does not contain additional features.
Re claim 11
The limitation of estimating a position of a feature point of an input image, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, “estimate” in the context of this claim encompasses the user mentally estimating the position of the feature point.
The limitation of assisting a user's input for designating a position of a feature point of the input image on a basis of a position estimated by the estimating and a position designated by the input, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation and a position designated by the input, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, “assisting a user” in the context of this claim encompasses the user mentally determining how to assist a user and explain to the user how select the feature points.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites additional elements – A non-transitory computer readable medium storing a program for causing a computer to execute. The medium in the steps is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic medium a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. 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. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does 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 element of using medium to perform the abstract idea amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
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.
Claim 1-11 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.
Re claim 1,
The claim recites “estimate a position” and “an estimated position” its unclear if an estimated position refers back to the estimating function or not.
The claim recites “input for designation a position” and “a position designated by the input” its unclear if a position designated by the input refers back to the previous designated position or not.
Claims 1-9 depend from claim 1.
Re claim 2 it is unclear if the element “an estimated position” and previous recitation of estimated positions refer to the same element or not.
Re claim 3 it is unclear if the element “an estimated position” and previous recitation of estimated positions refer to the same element or not.
it is unclear if the element “a position designated by the user's input” and previous recitation of designated positions refer to the same element or not.
Re claim 4 it is unclear if the element “an estimated position” and previous recitation of estimated positions refer to the same element or not.
it is unclear if the element “a position designated by the user's input” and previous recitation of designated positions refer to the same element or not.
Re claim 6 it is unclear if “an estimated position of each feature point” refers back to “estimate positions of a plurality of feature points of the input image” or not.
Re claim 7 it is unclear if “an estimated position of each feature point and an order of each feature point on the input image” refer back to “estimate positions of a plurality of feature points of the input image together with an order of feature points.”
Re claim 8 it is unclear if “estimate a position of a feature point” refers back to ““estimate a position of a feature point” in claim 1 from which this claim depends.
Re claim 10 The claim recites “estimating a position” and “an estimated position” it’s unclear if an estimated position refers back to the estimating function or not.
The claim recites “input for designation a position” and “a position designated by the input” it’s unclear if a position designated by the input refers back to the previous designated position or not.
Re claim 11 The claim recites “estimating a position” and “a position estimated by the estimating” it’s unclear if a position estimated refers back to the estimating function or not.
The claim recites “input for designation a position” and “a position designated by the input” it’s unclear if a position designated by the input refers back to the previous designated position or not.
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 and 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hara US 2016/0055367.
Re claim 1 Hara discloses An input assistance apparatus comprising: at least one storing instructions; and at least one processor configured to execute the instructions to (see paragraph 181 note that he function may be implemented by a processor storing a program running on a ROM): estimate a position of a feature point of an input image (see paragraph 96 and 97 note that the feature point extracting unit extracts a feature point on the basis of a feature point position input by the user); and assist a user's input (see paragraph 88 feature point input assisting unit.) for designating a position of a feature point of the input image (see paragraph 89 note that feature points which are estimated by the user are shown and figure 7b see also paragraph 90 is an example of when the feature point data is superimposed and displayed on the fingerprint image shown in FIG. 7A. The feature point data superimposed and displayed in FIG. 7B is the feature point data manually input in advance by the examiner”) on a basis of an estimated position and a position designated by the input (see paragraph 96 and 97 note that the feature point extracting unit extracts a feature point on the basis of a feature point position input by the user see also paragraph 134 and 135 note that the features point is estimated based on the input of the user).
Re claim 3 Hara discloses not display an estimated position prior to the user's input, and assist the input by evaluating the input on a basis of a position designated by the user's input and an estimated position (see paragraph see paragraph 88 “The feature point data corresponding to the fingerprint image to be input may be absent at step S01 “see paragraph 93 note that new feature points i.e. feature points not already displayed may be added to the determined feature points).
Claim(s) 1, 2, 9, 10 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Takada US JP2014114521.
Re claim 1 Takada discloses an input assistance apparatus comprising: at least one memory storing instructions (see paragraph 22 memory storing computer programs); and at least one processor (see paragraph 19 and 20) configured to execute the instructions to:
estimate a position of a feature point of an input image (see paragraph 27 and 28 note that feature points are extracted corresponding to facial features);
assist a user's input for designating a position of a feature point of the input image on a basis of an estimated position and a position designated by the input (see paragraph 43 note that the representative parts i.e features are displayed and the user corrects them see also paragraph 49 and 50).
Re claim 2 Takada discloses assist the input by displaying an estimated position prior to the user's input.(see paragraph 43 and 49 and 50).
Re claim 9 Takada discloses wherein the input image is a face image, and the feature point is a feature point of a face (see paragraph 38 and 39 note that the features are on a face also see figure 2).
Re claim 10 Takada disclose An input assistance method comprising: estimating a position of a feature point of an input image(see paragraph 27 and 28 note that feature points are extracted corresponding to facial features); and assisting a user's input for designating a position of a feature point of the input image on a basis of an estimated position and a position designated by the input(see paragraph 43 note that the representative parts i.e. features are )displayed and the user corrects them see also paragraph 49 and 50).
Re claim 11 Takada discloses a non-transitory computer readable medium storing a program for causing a computer to execute (see paragraph 22 memory storing computer programs); (see paragraph 19 and 20):
estimate a position of a feature point of an input image (see paragraph 27 and 28 note that feature points are extracted corresponding to facial features);
assist a user's input for designating a position of a feature point of the input image on a basis of an estimated position and a position designated by the input (see paragraph 43 note that the representative parts i.e features are displayed and the user corrects them see also paragraph 49 and 50).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1 and 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sakaguchi US 2008/0137934 in view of Hara US 2016/0055367.
Re claim 1 Sakaguchi discloses
An input assistance apparatus comprising: at least one storing instructions; and at least one processor configured to execute the instructions to ( see paragraph 85 “may be implemented as a program for causing a computer to implement the function of the apparatus, or can be provided as a computer-readable storage medium which stores the program”): estimate a position of a feature point of an input image ( see paragraph 98 “determines a predictive area in which a feature point is predicted to be located on the key image of the second frame”); and assist a user's input for designating a position of a feature point of the input image on a basis of an estimated position and a position designated by the input (see paragraph 98 “The apparatus designates a feature point on the key image of the second frame in accordance with the operation of the input device 5 by the operator with the support of the predictive area (S27). If a designated point is located outside the predictive area, the feature point designation support unit 8 displays the warning message "the designated point is located outside the predictive area" on the monitor 4 (S28), and corrects the feature point on the key image of the second frame in accordance with the re-operation of the input device 5 by the operator which has received the message (S29)”).
Sakaguchi does not expressly disclose a memory. Hara discloses a memory (see paragraph 181 note that the function may be implemented by a processor storing a program running on a ROM). The motivation to combine is “The CPU 5 (Central Processing Unit) is a processor for arithmetic control, and realizes each function means of the present invention by executing the program. The ROM 1 (Read-Only Memory) stores fixed data and programs such as initial data, programs” (see paragraph 181). Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Sakaguchi and Hara to reach the aforementioned advantage.
Re claim 4 Sakaguchi discloses assist by outputting a warning (see paragraph 98 “If a designated point is located outside the predictive area, the feature point designation support unit 8 displays the warning message "the designated point is located outside the predictive area" on the monitor 4”) on a basis of a magnitude of a deviation between a position designated by the user's input and an estimated position (see paragraph 98 “ enlarge the predictive area by uniformly providing a margin with a predetermined width around the epipolar line and display the resultant area as a two dimensional predictive area”).
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takada US JP2014114521 In view of Nozaki US 2004/0207743.
Re claim 5 Takada further discloses estimate positions of a plurality of feature points of the input image together, and the input assistance means assists assist designation of positions of feature points by the user.
Takada does not expressly disclose an order of feature points. Nozaki discloses an order of feature points (see abstract) during the selection of features points see abstract. The motivation to combine is to select features points according to priority see for example paragraph 24. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Takada and Nozaki to reach the aforementioned advantage.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takada US JP2014114521 In view of Nozaki US 2004/0207743 in further view of Nemeth US 2022.0374654.
Re claim 6 Takada further discloses displaying an estimated position of each feature point on the input image (see for example figure 3a and paragraph 40) Nozaki further disclose determining and order of the features (see abstract not that an order of features is determined). The do not disclose displaying an order of the features Nemeth discloses displaying an order of the features (see paragraph 97 note that features are displayed in order of their priority). The motivation to combine is to display features in order of their priority (see paragraph 97). Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Takada Nozaki and Nemeth to reach the aforementioned advantage.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takada US JP2014114521 In view of Nam US 20250131772 A1.
Re claim 8 Takada discloses all the features of claim 1 and estimate a position of a feature point of the input image using a model learned in advance (see paragraph 30 note that feature extraction means determines features points of 30 ) perform learning of the model again by using a combination of the input image and a position designated by the user's input as training data (see paragraph 35 “The generation means 13 then uses as teaching information the position coordinates of representative feature points on the face image and information that identifies marks such as "x" marks that are placed according to the positions of those representative feature points”).
Takada does not expressly disclose learning using a machine learning mode Nam discloses learning using a machine learning mode (see paragraph 50 note that machine learning is performed for facial feature points). The motivation to combine is “The deep learning model may be trained in advance to extract feature points, and after the training is completed, it may be mounted on an authentication device to extract feature points for a facial image of a user” (see paragraph 50). One of ordinary skill in the art could have easily trained deep learning model trained to extract features as disclosed by Nam in invention of Takada. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Takada and Nam to reach the aforementioned advantage.
Cited Art
The following is a recitation of art considered relevant but not applied in a rejection above:
Kim US 20190384966 A1 discloses “Provided is a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions for performing image correction by determining a plurality of first facial feature points of a first face included in a first image, displaying (i) at least a portion of the plurality of first facial feature points and (ii) the first image on a screen of an electronic device, recognizing a first input from an external source for moving at least one first facial feature point among the plurality of first facial feature points in the first image displayed on the screen, generating a corrected first image by moving the at least one first facial feature point in response to the first input and correcting the first image based on the moved at least one first facial feature point, and generating correction pattern information by analyzing a correction pattern of the first image.” (See abstract)
Ramos US 2019/0244113 discloses Classification predictions made by a concept classifier may be interactively visualized and explored in a user interface that displays visual representations of a plurality of data items in a star coordinate space spanned by a plurality of anchor concepts each mapping the data items onto respective finite real-valued scores. Positions of the visual representations of the data items in the star coordinate space are based on the scores for the plurality of anchor concepts, and may be updated responsive to a user manipulating the anchor concepts in the user interface, e.g., by moving or modifying definitions of anchor concepts, or by adding or deleting anchor concepts. The visual representations may of the data items may reflect labels and/or classification predictions, and may be updated based on updated classification predictions following retraining the of the concept classifier based on added training data or new features. (see abstract)
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SEAN T MOTSINGER whose telephone number is (571)270-1237. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-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, Chineyere Wills-Burns can be reached at (571) 272-9752. 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.
/SEAN T MOTSINGER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2673
Prosecution Insights