DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
The preliminary amendment dated 11/27/2024 has been entered and made of record. The application has pending claim(s) 1-8.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed. The Examiner suggests the title to be -- IMAGE PROCESSING DEVICE AND METHOD TO PERFORM CONVOLUTION PROCESSING FOR AN IMAGE --
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-4 and 7-8 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 at line each of lines 1-2 and 7-8; and claim 7 at each of lines 2 and 5-6; and claim 8 at each of lines 2 and 7 respectively: “neural network that can perform” should be -- neural network configured to perform --.
Claim 2 at line 2; and claim 3 at line 2; and claim 4 at line 2 respectively: “the difference from the feature” should be -- the difference from the feature of the small region processed in the past --.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-8 are 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 at line 18: The claim limitation “which a difference from the predetermined feature is” renders the claim indefinite and unclear because a difference [subtraction] is between two numbers / values / parameters / variables and the claim limitation’s difference merely refers to the single predetermined feature. The Examiner notes that the specification does not provide further clarification either.
Similar discussions are addressed with regard to claims 7-8 respectively.
Re Claim 1 at lines 20-21: The claim limitation “which a difference from the feature of the small region processed in the past is” renders the claim indefinite and unclear because a difference [subtraction] is between two numbers / values / parameters / variables and the claim limitation’s difference merely refers to the single feature. The Examiner notes that the specification does not provide further clarification either.
Similar discussions are addressed with regard to claims 2-4 and 7-8 respectively.
Re Claim 1: The claim limitation “in the past” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear what is meant by “in the past”. The specification does not provide further clarification either. Therefore, the claim is not clear with regards to if “in the past” refers to a particular past iterative step, a feature from a previously processed small region, a particular past period of time, etc.
Similar discussions are addressed with regard to claims 7-8 respectively.
Claims 2-6 are dependent upon claim 1 respectively.
Appropriate correction is required.
Examiner’s Comments
The Office Action has established rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) with regard to claims 1-8. The scope of claims 1-8 cannot be determined because of the identified issues presented above. The numerous rejections to claims 1-8 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) render Applicant's claims as being incomprehensible as to preclude a reasonably detailed search of the prior art by the Examiner. The Examiner has attempted to identify all grounds for rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b). However, the number of issues with regard to claims 1-8 is tied together and related to one another that the scope of the claims cannot be ascertained. The Examiner suggests that the Applicant carefully review the claims in order to fix any and all issues that have and have not been highlighted by this Office Action.
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 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea) without integration into a practical application or recitation of significantly more.
In the analysis below, the device of independent claim 1 and similarly the method of independent claim 7 and the non-transitory storage medium of independent claim 8 are directed to one of the four statutory categories of eligible subject matter; thus, the claims pass Step 1 of the Subject Matter Eligibility Test (See flowchart in MPEP 2106).
Step 2A, prong 1 analysis
The independent claims are directed to “process the target image … perform the convolution processing, … when performing the convolution processing, performs the convolution processing for each small region obtained by dividing an input feature map to be an input of the convolution processing, wherein, when the convolution processing is performed for each small region, in a case in which features constituting a small region correspond to a predetermined feature or a feature of a small region processed in the past, the convolution processing is not performed for the small region, … wherein the small region corresponding to the predetermined feature is a small region in which a difference from the predetermined feature is equal to or less than a threshold, and wherein the small region corresponding to a feature of a small region processed in the past is a small region in which a difference from the feature of the small region processed in the past is equal to or less than a threshold”.
The above limitations of “when performing the convolution processing, performs the convolution processing for each small region obtained by dividing an input feature map to be an input of the convolution processing”, “wherein the small region corresponding to the predetermined feature is a small region in which a difference from the predetermined feature is equal to or less than a threshold”, and “wherein the small region corresponding to a feature of a small region processed in the past is a small region in which a difference from the feature of the small region processed in the past is equal to or less than a threshold” as drafted, are processes that, under broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mathematical relationships and calculations which falls within the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas.
Each of the above limitations of “process the target image … perform the convolution processing” and “wherein, when the convolution processing is performed for each small region, in a case in which features constituting a small region correspond to a predetermined feature or a feature of a small region processed in the past, the convolution processing is not performed for the small region” as drafted, are processes that, under broadest reasonable interpretation, covers the performance of the limitation in the human mind which falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas.
Additional elements
The additional elements recited in independent claim 1 are the elements of an “image processing device including a neural network”, “a memory”, and “at least one processor coupled to the memory”. The additional elements recited in independent claim 7 are the elements of an “image processing device including a neural network”. The additional elements recited in independent claim 8 are the elements of a “non-transitory storage medium storing a program executable by a computer, including a neural network”. The independent claims also include the additional elements of “acquire a target image to be processed” and “a result of processing for the predetermined feature or a result of processing in the past is output as a processing result for the small region”.
Step 2A, prong 2 analysis
The above-identified additional elements do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The steps of “acquire a target image to be processed” and “a result of processing for the predetermined feature or a result of processing in the past is output as a processing result for the small region” merely constitute activity involving data gathering and data outputting. Such extra-solution activity does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Please see MPEP §2106.05(g).
The other additional elements “image processing device including a neural network”, “a memory”, “at least one processor coupled to the memory”, and a “non-transitory storage medium storing a program executable by a computer, including a neural network” amounts to merely using a computer as a tool to perform the claimed mental process. Implementing an abstract idea on a computer does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Moreover, the additional elements of the claims do not recite an improvement in the functioning of a computer or other technology or technical field, the claimed steps are not performed using a particular machine, the claimed steps do not effect a transformation, and the claims do not apply the judicial exception in any meaningful way beyond generically linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment (See MPEP 2106.04(d)). Therefore, the analysis under prong two of step 2A of the Subject Matter Eligibility Test does not result in a conclusion of eligibility (See flowchart in MPEP 2106).
Step 2B
Finally, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As noted above, the steps of “acquire a target image to be processed” and “a result of processing for the predetermined feature or a result of processing in the past is output as a processing result for the small region” amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity. Such insignificant extra-solution activity does not constitute significantly more than the claimed data gathering (See MPEP 2106.05(g)).
The other additional elements “image processing device including a neural network”, “a memory”, “at least one processor coupled to the memory”, and a “non-transitory storage medium storing a program executable by a computer, including a neural network” are generic computer features which perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine, and conventional and do not amount to more than implementing the abstract idea with a computerized system. Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea).
Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation, and mere implementation on a generic computer does not add significantly more to the claims. Accordingly, the analysis under step 2B of the Subject Matter Eligibility Test does not result in a conclusion of eligibility (See flowchart in MPEP 2106).
For all of the foregoing reasons, independent claims 1 and 7-8 do not recite eligible subject matter under 35 USC 101.
Regarding Dependent Claims 2-6:
Claims 2-6 are dependent on corresponding independent claim 1 respectively and therefore includes all the limitations of corresponding independent claim 1. Thus claims 2-6 recite “Mathematical Concepts” and “Mental Processes”. Further, claims 2-6 further describe:
Dependent claims 2-4 merely describe “wherein the small region in which the difference from the feature is equal to or less than the threshold is a small region in which a difference in feature for each pixel is equal to or less than a threshold”, “wherein, in the small region in which the difference from the feature is equal to or less than the threshold, bits other than a predetermined bit number of lower bits are the same as the feature”, and “wherein the small region in which the difference from the feature is equal to or less than the threshold is a small region in which a number of pixels that are different in the feature is equal to or less than a threshold” which are processes that, under broadest reasonable interpretation, and due to their broad generality covers mathematical relationships and calculations which falls within the same “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas and it does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or add significantly more.
Dependent claim 5 merely describes “wherein the thresholds are determined in advance in such a way that the processing using the neural network has predetermined accuracy”. Dependent claim 6 merely describes wherein the predetermined feature is that the features in the small region are the same”. However, these limitations due to their broad generality are merely observational covering the performance of the limitation in the human mind which falls within the same “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas and it does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or add significantly more.
Thus, claims 2-6 do not recite eligible subject matter under 35 USC 101.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Sunwoo et al ‘532 discloses determining whether or not to perform the convolution operation based on the number of ‘0’ in the partial region of the input feature map compared to a predetermined threshold; Kampeas et al ‘553 discloses computationally efficient neural networks wherein in case the respective input feature value is larger than the feature threshold value, the at least one sparsifying activation layer outputs a respective difference between the respective input feature value and the feature threshold value as the respective non-zero output feature value and further pruning the convolutional weights based on the weight threshold value by setting the respective convolutional weight to zero, in case an absolute value of the respective convolutional weight is smaller than the weight threshold value; Mathew et al ‘864 discloses sparsified training of convolutional neural networks wherein entire block operations are to be skipped if the coefficient value is zero; Brothers et al ‘068 discloses reducing computations in a neural network wherein Any convolution kernels identified with all components less than the threshold may be assigned to a skip group.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BERNARD KRASNIC whose telephone number is (571)270-1357. The examiner can normally be reached Mon. - Thur. and every other Friday from 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, Vincent Rudolph can be reached at (571)272-8243. 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.
/Bernard Krasnic/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2671 July 6, 2026
Prosecution Insights