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
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 09/16/2024 was filed and is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Status
Claims 1-7 ,9-10, and 12-22 are pending in the present application.
Claims 1-4, 9-10, 12-14, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 USC 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Regarding claims 5-7, 15-17, and 21-22, these claims contain eligible subject matter under 35 USC 101.
Claims 1, 9, and 10 are rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. (CN 111695429 A) in view of Xiao et al. (CN 106960027 A).
Claims 5-7, 15-17, and 21-22 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
No prior art rejection is currently applied to claims 2-7 and 12-22.
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(s) 1-4, 9-10, 12-14, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover mental processes (concepts performed in a human mind, including as an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion, organizing human activity and/or mathematical concepts and calculations). The independent claim(s) 1, 9, and 10 recite(s) a method and an apparatus for determining if two frames are associated. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the steps do not add meaningful limitations to be considered specifically applied to a particular technological problem to be solved .The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the steps of the claimed invention can be done mentally and no additional features in the claims would preclude them from being performed as such except for the generic computer elements at high level of generality (i.e., processor, memory).
According to the USPTO guidelines, a claim is directed to non-statutory subject matter if:
STEP 1: the claim does not fall within one of the four statutory categories of invention (process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter), or
STEP 2: the claim recites a judicial exception, e.g. an abstract idea, without reciting additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, as determined using the following analysis:
STEP 2A (PRONG 1): Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
STEP 2A (PRONG 2): Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
STEP 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
Using the two-step inquiry, it is clear that the independent claims 1, 9, and 10 are directed to an abstract idea as shown below:
STEP 1: Do the claims fall within one of the statutory categories? YES. Independent claims 1, 9, and 10 are directed to a method and an apparatus for determining if frames of video should be associated.
STEP 2A (PRONG 1): Is the claim directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon or an abstract idea? YES, the claims are directed toward a mental processes and/or mathematical concepts (i.e. abstract idea).
With regard to STEP 2A (PRONG 1), the guidelines provide three groupings of subject matter that are considered abstract ideas:
Mathematical concepts – mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations;
Certain methods of organizing human activity – fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions); and
Mental processes – concepts that are practicably performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion).
Independent claims 1, 9, and 10 comprise mental processes and/or mathematical concepts that can be practicably performed in the human mind (or generic computers or components configured to perform the method) and, therefore, an abstract idea.
Regarding independent claim(s) 1, 9, and 10, the limitations recite:
in response to determining that the plurality of images to be associated do not belong to same driving data according to the image information corresponding to the plurality of images to be associated, (The step of determining if two images are from the same driving data falls into the “mental processes” grouping of abstract ideas because determining if two images are from the same driving data can be performed in the human mind as an observation, evaluation, judgement or opinion. A person can look at the metadata of images, such as time and location of when the images are generated, to determine if the images are from the same driving data (driving session).),
determining at least one piece of spatial data according to the image information corresponding to the plurality of images to be associated, (The step of determining at least one piece of spatial data based on images falls into the “mental processes” grouping of abstract ideas because determining at least one piece of spatial data based on images can be performed in the human mind as an observation, evaluation, judgement or opinion. A person can determine a difference in GPS coordinates of images by subtracting GPS location of the images. .),
associating images to be associated corresponding to target spatial data that satisfies a preset condition in the at least one piece of spatial data (The step of determining if images should be associated based on a threshold value falls into the “mental processes” grouping of abstract ideas because determining if images should be associated based on a threshold value can be performed in the human mind as an observation, evaluation, judgement or opinion. A person can mentally determine if a number is over or under a threshold value.).
These limitations, as drafted, is a simple process that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations in the mind or by a human. The Examiner notes that under MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III), the courts consider a mental process (thinking) that “can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper" to be an abstract idea. CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1372, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1695 (Fed. Cir. 2011). As the Federal Circuit explained, "methods which can be performed mentally, or which are the equivalent of human mental work, are unpatentable abstract ideas the ‘basic tools of scientific and technological work’ that are open to all.’" 654 F.3d at 1371, 99 USPQ2d at 1694 (citing Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 175 USPQ 673 (1972)). See also Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs. Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 71, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1965 ("‘[M]ental processes[] and abstract intellectual concepts are not patentable, as they are the basic tools of scientific and technological work’" (quoting Benson, 409 U.S. at 67, 175 USPQ at 675)); Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 589, 198 USPQ 193, 197 (1978) (same).
As such, a person could mentally determine if images are from the same driving data, determining a spatial data based on the images, and determining if images should be associated based on if the spatial data satisfies a threshold. The mere nominal recitation that the various steps are being executed by a processor does not take the limitations out of the mental process and/or mathematical concepts groupings. Thus, the claims recite a mental process.
STEP 2A (PRONG 2): Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? NO, the claims do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
With regard to STEP 2A (prong 2), whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, the guidelines provide the following exemplary considerations that are indicative that an additional element (or combination of elements) may have integrated the judicial exception into a practical application:
an additional element reflects an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field;
an additional element that applies or uses a judicial exception to affect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition;
an additional element implements a judicial exception with, or uses a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim;
an additional element effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; and
an additional element applies or uses the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
While the guidelines further state that the exemplary considerations are not an exhaustive list and that there may be other examples of integrating the exception into a practical application, the guidelines also list examples in which a judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application:
an additional element merely recites the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely includes instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea;
an additional element adds insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception; and
an additional element does no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
Independent claims 1, 9, and 10 do not recite any of the exemplary considerations that are indicative of an abstract idea having been integrated into a practical application.
Independent claims 1, 9, and 10 discloses an obtaining a plurality of images to be associated, wherein each of the plurality of images to be associated has corresponding image information, which is insignificant pre-solution extra activity of gathering information that do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea in a system
Independent claims 1, 9, and 10 discloses an [wherein the driving data comprises a plurality of frames of images generated by a vehicle and image information corresponding to each of the plurality of frames of images, which is insignificant pre-solution extra activity of gathering information that do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea in a system.
Independent claims 9 and 10 discloses a processor, a memory, and a non-transitory computer readable storage medium, which are generic computer components that do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea in a system.
These limitations are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general action or change being taken based on the results of the acquiring step) and amounts to mere post solution actions, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. Further, the claims are claimed generically and are operating in their ordinary capacity such that they do not use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
STEP 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No, the claims do not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
With regard to STEP 2B, whether the claims recite additional elements that provide significantly more than the recited judicial exception, the guidelines specify that the pre-guideline procedure is still in effect. Specifically, that examiners should continue to consider whether an additional element or combination of elements:
adds a specific limitation or combination of limitations that are not well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field, which is indicative that an inventive concept may be present; or
simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, which is indicative that an inventive concept may not be present.
Independent claim(s) 1, 9, and 10 do not recite any additional elements that are not well-understood, routine or conventional. The use of a generic computer elements are routine, well-understood and conventional process that is performed by computers.
Thus, since independent claims 1, 9, and 10 are: (a) directed toward an abstract idea, (b) do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, and (c) do not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, it is clear that independent claims 1, 9, and 10 are not eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C 101.
Regarding claims 2, 12, and 18: the additional limitations do not integrate the mental process into a practical application or add significantly more to the mental process. The limitations:
“in response to determining that the plurality of images to be associated belong to the same driving data according to the image information corresponding to the plurality of images to be associated, determining whether the plurality of images to be associated comprise adjacent frames of images in the driving data;
in response to the plurality of images to be associated comprising the adjacent frames of images, associating images that are adjacent frames in the plurality of images to be associated; and
in response to the plurality of images to be associated not comprising the adjacent frames of images, determining the at least one piece of spatial data according to the image information corresponding to the plurality of images to be associated” fall into the mental processes grouping of abstract ideas.
Regarding claims 3, 13, and 19: the additional limitations do not integrate the mental process into a practical application or add significantly more to the mental process. The limitations:
“each spatial data comprises distance data and angle data” merely adds definition to previous limitation that do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea.
“associating the images to be associated corresponding to the target spatial data whose distance data is less than a first preset threshold and whose angle data is less than a second preset threshold in the at least one piece of spatial data, wherein two corresponding images to be associated exist for one piece of spatial data” fall into the mental processes grouping of abstract ideas.
Regarding claims 4, 14, and 20: the additional limitations do not integrate the mental process into a practical application or add significantly more to the mental process. The limitations:
“generating a first judgment result according to image information corresponding to two associated images;
generating a second judgment result according to extracted feature information of the two associated images; and
if any of the first judgment result and the second judgment result indicates that the two associated images are associated incorrectly, disassociating the two associated images;
wherein each judgment result is configured to indicate that the two associated images are associated incorrectly or the two associated images are not associated incorrectly” falls into the mental processes grouping of abstract ideas.
Regarding claims 5, 15, and 21, the additional limitation(s):
“wherein the two associated images comprise a first image and a second image, and generating the first judgment result according to the image information corresponding to the two associated images, comprises:
after determining a first coordinate of a first vehicle that generates the first image in image information corresponding to the first image, mapping the first vehicle into a pixel coordinate system of the second image according to the first coordinate, and generating a third judgment result according to the pixel coordinate system of the second image after the mapping;
after determining a second coordinate of a second vehicle that generates the second image in image information corresponding to the second image, mapping the second vehicle into a pixel coordinate system of the first image according to the second coordinate, and generating a fourth judgment result according to the pixel coordinate system of the first image after the mapping; and
generating the first judgment result according to the third judgment result and the fourth judgment result” are NOT directed toward an abstract idea since it recites additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application and add significantly more that the judicial exception. Therefore, claim(s) 5, 15, and 21 are not directed to an abstract idea and therefore is/are not rejected under 35 USC 101.
Regarding claims 6, 16, and 22, the claims are dependent upon claims 5, 15, and 21 respectively. As such, claims 6, 16, and 22 are not directed to an abstract idea and therefore are not rejected under 35 USC 101.
Regarding claims 7 and 17, the additional limitations:
“wherein generating the second judgment result according to the extracted feature information of the two associated images, comprises:
extracting the feature information of the two associated images to obtain feature information of a first image of the two associated images and feature information of a second image of the two associated images;
matching feature points in the feature information of the first image and the feature information of the second image, and determining a number of feature points that are successfully matched; and
generating the second judgment result according to the number of feature points that are successfully matched and a third preset threshold” are NOT directed toward an abstract idea since it recites additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application and add significantly more that the judicial exception. Therefore, claims 7 and 17 are not directed to an abstract idea and therefore is/are not rejected under 35 USC 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 9, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. (CN 111695429 A, hereinafter Wang) in view of Xiao et al. (CN 106960027 A, hereinafter Xiao).
Regarding claims 1, 9, and 10, Wang discloses
Claim 1: An image association method, comprising:
Claim 9: An electronic device, comprising: a processor; and a memory storing computer programs, which, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to:
Claim 10: A non-transitory computer readable storage medium having computer programs stored thereon, which, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to:
obtain a plurality of images to be associated, wherein each of the plurality of images to be associated has corresponding image information (Abstract: “a video image target association device and terminal equipment, wherein the video image target association device comprises the following steps: acquiring first frame number information and first position information of a reference target, and acquiring second frame number information and second position information of a target to be associated”, P. 2 Para. 5: “acquiring first data corresponding to a reference target and second data corresponding to a target to be associated, wherein the first data comprises first frame sequence number information and corresponding first position information of the reference target in a preset video image sequence, and the second data comprises second frame sequence number information and corresponding second position information of the target to be associated in the preset video image sequence.”);
in response to…, determine at least one piece of spatial data according to the image information corresponding to the plurality of images to be associated (Abstract: “determining the time coincidence degree of the reference target and the target to be associated according to the number of frames of the reference target and the target to be associated in the target video frame; determining the spatial association degree of a reference target and a target to be associated according to the first position information and the second position information in the target video frame; calculating the correlation confidence of the target to be correlated according to the time coincidence degree and the space correlation degree; and if the association confidence of the target to be associated meets a preset association condition, determining the target to be associated as an associated target having an association relation with the reference target.”, P. 2 Para. 8: “determining the spatial association degree of the reference target and the target to be associated according to the first position information and the second position information in the target video frame”),
wherein the driving data comprises a plurality of frames of images generated by a vehicle and image information corresponding to each of the plurality of frames of images (Abstract: “a video image target association device and terminal equipment, wherein the video image target association device comprises the following steps: acquiring first frame number information and first position information of a reference target, and acquiring second frame number information and second position information of a target to be associated; determining a target video frame according to the first frame sequence number information and the second frame sequence number information”, P. 2 Para. 5: “acquiring first data corresponding to a reference target and second data corresponding to a target to be associated, wherein the first data comprises first frame sequence number information and corresponding first position information of the reference target in a preset video image sequence, and the second data comprises second frame sequence number information and corresponding second position information of the target to be associated in the preset video image sequence”); and
associate images to be associated corresponding to target spatial data that satisfies a preset condition in the at least one piece of spatial data (P. 2 Para. 9-10: “calculating the correlation confidence of the target to be correlated according to the time contact degree and the space correlation degree; and if the association confidence of the target to be associated meets a preset association condition, determining the target to be associated as an associated target having an association relation with the reference target.”).
However, Wang does not disclose
determining that the plurality of images to be associated do not belong to same driving data according to the image information corresponding to the plurality of images to be associated.
Xiao teaches
determining that the plurality of images to be associated do not belong to same driving data according to the image information corresponding to the plurality of images to be associated (P. 3 Para. 10: “Spatial information and camera parameters, spatial information include unmanned plane position, shooting direction, shooting angle, unmanned plane highly; Shooting Machine parameter includes viewing field of camera and the depth of field. Analysis phase, with reference to camera performance parameter, foundation was pushed away using the spatial information of record With the presence or absence of association and correlation degree between reason rule judgment multidate video”, P. 4 Para. 7-8: “1. whether identical collection point is judges according to the positional information of record; If the Euclidean distance of position is in predetermined threshold 1km Inside then it is judged to same collection point; If 2. collection point is identical, and the camera shooting azimuth angle of identical two images is less than the 1/2 of camera field of view, is judged as Association, is not otherwise associated;”).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Wang with determining whether images are taken at the same location with similar angle and thus determining the association of images of Xiao to effectively reduce the cost of when associating images.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-7,15-17 and 21-22 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Relevant Prior Art Directed to State of Art
Kroepfl et al. (US 2021/0063200 A1, hereinafter Kroepfl) is prior art not applied in the rejection(s) above. Kroepfl discloses an end-to-end system for data generation, map creation using the generated data, and localization to the created map. Mapstreams-or streams of sensor data, perception outputs from deep neural networks (DNNs), and/or relative trajectory data-corresponding to any number of drives by any number of vehicles may be generated and uploaded to the cloud. The mapstreams may be used to generate map data-and ultimately a fused high definition (HD) map-that represents data generated over a plurality of drives. When localizing to the fused HD map, individual localization results may be generated based on comparisons of real-time data from a sensor modality to map data corresponding to the same sensor modality. This process may be repeated for any number of sensor modalities and the results may be fused together to determine a final fused localization result.
Zhang et al. (US 2018/0188027 A1, hereinafter Zhang) is prior art not applied in the rejection(s) above. Zhang discloses a vehicle that comprises an imaging system configured to capture image frames depicting a portion of the surrounding area. Features are identified from the captured image frames, and a 3-D location is determined for each identified feature. The features of different image frames corresponding to different points in time are analyzed to determine a transformation in the pose of the vehicle during the time period between the image frames. The determined poses of the vehicle are used to generate an HD map of the local area.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSHUA CHEN whose telephone number is (703)756-5394. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th: 9:30 am - 4:30pm ET F: 9:30 am - 2:30pm ET.
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, STEPHEN R KOZIOL can be reached at (408)918-7630. 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.
/J. C./ Examiner, Art Unit 2665
/WASSIM MAHROUKA/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2665
Prosecution Insights