DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . It is responsive to the submission dated 01/06/2025. Claims 1-4, 6-10, 21-26, 28-29, and 32-34 are presented for examination.
Information Disclosure Statement
2. The information disclosure statements (IDSs) submitted on 01/06/2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97 and are being considered by the Examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
3. 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.
4. Claims 1-4, 6-10, 21-26, 28-29, and 32-34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Under step 1, it is determined whether the claims are directed to a statutory category of invention (see MPEP 2106.03(II)). In the instant case, claims 1-4, and 21-26 are directed to a method, and claims 6-10, 28-29 and 32-34 are directed to a processing system.
While the claims fall within statutory categories, under revised Step 2A, Prong 1 of the eligibility analysis (MPEP 2106.04), the claimed invention recites an abstract idea of gathering and computing datasets according to certain mathematical relationships and using the gathered datasets to compute additional mathematical calculations (e.g., a method of computing mathematical concepts), but for the recitation of using a neural network and one or more processors of a processing system with a memory.
For examples, the steps of generating an intersection prediction and a distance prediction based on the reference point, the ray, and the perpendicular foot of the ray relative to the reference point are construed as mere observations/recognitions and data gathering-processes that can be performed in the mind.
The steps of comparing the intersection indicator to the intersection prediction to generate an intersection loss value for the given training example; and generating a distance loss value for the given training example based at least in part on a comparison of the distance indicator to the distance prediction; and the step of modifying one or more parameters of the neural network based at least in part on the intersection loss values and the distance loss values generated for the plurality of training examples- as a whole, these steps are construed as mere computations of data values in a variation for different mathematical algorithms in connection with an object geometry. They merely try to solve a mathematical problem to yield certain values with no practical
Thus, both of respective method and system claims 1 and 6, under their broadest reasonable interpretations, cover the performance of the limitations in the mind and the computation of mathematical calculations, but for the implication of (e.g., a method of computing mathematical concepts), but for the recitation of using a neural network and one or more processors of a processing system with a memory. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Under revised Step 2A, Prong 2 of the eligibility analysis, if it is determined that the claims recite a judicial exception, it is then necessary to evaluate whether the claims recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of that exception. In this case, representative claim 1 is not integrated into a practical application, because claim 1 recites the additional elements of using a neural network, a memory and one or more processors of a processing system.
These additional elements individually and in combination are recited at a high level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere instruction to apply the exception using generic computer components. See: MPEP 2106.05(f). These elements appear to be mere tangential additions to the abstract idea(s) and amount to extra-solution activity concerning mere data gathering. The addition of an insignificant extra-solution activity limitation does not impose meaningful limits on the claim in that it is not nominally or tangentially related to the invention.
In the claimed context, the use of a neural network, memory and of a processor of a processing system to generate data values, together, only presents the idea of a solution, without expressly describing how the neural network and the processor of the system are interconnected and used to train the neural network achieve the stated result. The vague citation of a neural network and of a processor are mere tangential addition to the abstract idea(s) and amount to extra-solution activity concerning mere data gathering and mathematical computations. They do not impose meaningful limits on the claim such that they are not nominally or tangentially related to the invention. Accordingly, the additional elements of using a neural network, a memory and one or more processors of a processing system do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application of the invention.
Under Step 2B of the eligibility analysis, if it is determined that the claims recite a judicial exception that is not integrated into a practical application of that exception, it is then necessary to evaluate the additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether they provide an invention concept (i.e., whether the additional elements amount to significantly more than the exception itself), as discussed in MPEP 2106.05.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application, because the use of a neural network, memory and one or more processors of a processing system (as the additional elements) are merely incidental or token additions to the claims. By merely generating a value as output for the recited mental process, as cited in the claims, they do not alter or affect how the process steps or functions in the abstract idea(s) are being performed. Therefore, the use of a neural network and one or more processors of a processing system are construed as insignificant extra-solution activity limitation that do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the mental processes beyond a general linking to a technological environment. See: MPEP 2106.05(h). The use of a neural network, memory and a processor for computing a mathematical algorithm based on context, in the field artificial intelligence or computer vision, is well-known, routine, and conventional in the art. Thus, they do not qualify as inventive concepts, even when applied together.
As such, it is submitted that claims 1 and 6 are not patent eligible under 35 USC 101.
Dependent claims 2-4 and 7-10 further narrow the claimed abstract ideas by reciting steps that further define the mental process of data gathering to the otherwise abstract ideas of performing the mathematical concepts; but they do not any practical application outside the insignificant extra-solution activity limitations.
Both of independent claims 21 and 28 recite features that correspond in scope with the limitations recited in respective claims 1 and 6; except that claims 21 and 28 are broader versions thereof. Thus, the features of claims 21 and 28 are not patent eligible under 35 USC 101 under the same rationales as claims 1 and 6.
Dependent Claims 22-26, 29 and 32-34 further narrow the claimed abstract ideas by defining how the mathematical concepts are performed to using additional mathematical relationships.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
5. 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.
6. Claims 1-4, 6-10, 21-26, 28-29, and 32-34 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.
In claims 1, 6, 21 and 28, the limitation reciting” “a reference point, a ray, a perpendicular foot of the ray relative to the reference point ,…., and a distance indicator indicating a shortest distance along the ray between the perpendicular foot and a surface of the object” renders the claimed limitations indefinite, because in the context of ray considerations in computer graphics, the reference point is usually the origin of the ray. Moreover, for such point or any "reference" point taken on the ray, it is not possible to define a "perpendicular foot".
The original disclosure, at paragraph 47, teaches that the reference point is not, as usual, the origin of the ray, or any other point selected in the ray, but, "any suitable point, such as the origin point of a Cartesian coordinate system on which the object and the ray may be plotted. " However, the original disclosure fails to provide the details for taking a "reference point” on a ray to define a "perpendicular foot".
Thus, the lack of a clearly and precisely defined metes and bounds of the claimed limitation render the claims indefinite and leave the reader in doubt as to the meaning of the technical feature to which they refer and what the Applicant regards as the invention.
The claims not specifically cited in this rejection are rejected as being dependent upon their rejected base claims.
Allowable Subject Matter
7. Claims 1-4, 6-10, 21-26, 28-29, and 32-34 have no art rejection but are rejected for formality reasons under 35 U.S.C. § 112. As the technical features of the wording of dependent claims 1, 6, 21 and 28 are indefinite for the reasons discussed above, the technical effect of the subject-matters of these claims is indeterminate and thus, they cannot be agreed that a problem is solved by each of these diverging claims. A final determination of patentability of the claims will be made upon resolution of the above claim rejections.
Conclusion
8. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Rematas et al. (US 20240420413) discloses Systems and methods for view synthesis and three-dimensional reconstruction can learn an environment by utilizing a plurality of images of an environment and depth data. The use of depth data can be helpful when the quantity of images and different angles may be limited. For example, large outdoor environments can be difficult to learn due to the size, the varying image exposures, and the limited variance in view direction changes. The systems and methods can leverage a plurality of panoramic images and corresponding lidar data to accurately learn a large outdoor environment to then generate view synthesis outputs and three-dimensional reconstruction outputs. Training may include the use of an exposure correction network to address lighting exposure differences between training images.
9. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WESNER SAJOUS whose telephone number is (571)272-7791. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 10:00 TO 7:30 (ET).
Examiner interviews are available via telephone 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 or email the Examiner directly at wesner.sajous@uspto.gov.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Said Broome can be reached on 571-272-2931. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. 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. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/WESNER SAJOUS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2612
WS
07/25/2026
Prosecution Insights