DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), which papers have been placed of record in the file.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDSs) submitted on October 29, 2024 and June 6, 2025 comply with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Related applications
Applicant should amend the cross-reference to related applications portion of the specification to update the current status of the cited applications.
35 USC § 101 Statutory Analysis
Claims 1-6 do not recite any of the judicial exceptions enumerated in the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance. Further, the claims do not recite any method of organizing human activity, such as a fundamental economic concept or managing interactions between people. Finally, the claims do not recite a mathematical relationship, formula, or calculation. Thus, claims 1-6 are eligible because they do not recite a judicial exception.
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 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
The following analysis is based on the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (2019 PEG) published on January 7, 2019 (84 Fed. Reg. 50). See Also MEPE 2106.04(a)(2)(II).
With regard to claim 7:
Step 1:
Claim 7 meets step 1 requirement as they are directed towards a process, which is statutory subject matter. In this case, “a method” satisfies a “process” category.
Step 2A, prong 1 test:
Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? Yes, claim 7 as a whole recites a method facilitating steps of organizing human activity e.g., mental process as explained in details below.
Claim 7 in general is about how the method provides for “creating … an ortho-image characterized by replacing the area around the vehicle on the road with the image of the road without the vehicle in another photographed image so that the vehicle is not on the road”.
The limitations of “creating … an ortho-image characterized by replacing the area around the vehicle on the road with the image of the road without the vehicle in another photographed image so that the vehicle is not on the road” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in a mental process/step (a mathematical relationship, formula, or calculation). That is, nothing in the claim element precludes the processing from being performed as a mental process, or merely on pencil and paper.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of a mental step which could be performed with pen and paper, then it falls within the “mental steps” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A, prong 2 test:
Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? No as explained below.
The claim does not recite any physical elements nor does it recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. As will be explained below, these various tasks can be performed as mental steps. With respect to the functions of “creating … an ortho-image characterized by replacing the area around the vehicle on the road with the image of the road without the vehicle in another photographed image so that the vehicle is not on the road” the broadest reasonable interpretation would have encompassed any forms of calculating inclusive of mental calculations.
Step 2B:
Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No as explained below.
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 does not amount to significantly more because it is not integrated into a practical application. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. In particular, the claims do not recite additional elements to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims are directed to an abstract idea. The claims are not patent eligible.
With regard to claim 8:
Step 1:
Claim 8 meets step 1 requirement as they are directed towards a process, which is statutory subject matter. In this case, “a method” satisfies a “process” category.
Step 2A, prong 1 test:
Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? Yes, claim 8 as a whole recites a method facilitating steps of organizing human activity e.g., mental process as explained in details below.
Claim 8 in general is about how the method provides for “creating … an ortho-image characterized by replacing the area around the vehicle on the road with the image of the road without the vehicle in another photographed image so that the vehicle is not on the road”.
The limitations of “creating … an ortho-image characterized by replacing the area around the vehicle on the road with the image of the road without the vehicle in another photographed image so that the vehicle is not on the road” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in a mental process/step (a mathematical relationship, formula, or calculation). That is, nothing in the claim element precludes the processing from being performed as a mental process, or merely on pencil and paper.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of a mental step which could be performed with pen and paper, then it falls within the “mental steps” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A, prong 2 test:
Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? No as explained below.
The claim does not recite any physical elements nor does it recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. As will be explained below, these various tasks can be performed as mental steps. With respect to the functions of “creating … an ortho-image characterized by replacing the area around the vehicle on the road with the image of the road without the vehicle in another photographed image so that the vehicle is not on the road” the broadest reasonable interpretation would have encompassed any forms of calculating inclusive of mental calculations.
Step 2B:
Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No as explained below.
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 does not amount to significantly more because it is not integrated into a practical application. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. In particular, the claims do not recite additional elements to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims are directed to an abstract idea. The claims are not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 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.
Claims 1, 3-4 and 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yoshida et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2011/0164037 A1) (hereafter referred to as “Yoshida”).
With regard to claim 1, Yoshida describes a coordinate acquisition step to acquire three-dimensional coordinates of a plurality of feature points (see Figure 1, element 400 and refer for example to paragraphs [0042] and [0081]); a photography step to photograph a plurality of photographed images of the plurality of feature points by an unmanned aerial vehicle or a model aerial vehicle flying overhead above a ground in such a manner that each feature point is included in at least two of the photographed images (see Figure 1, element 200 and refer for example to paragraphs [0046] and [0085]) and an ortho-image creation step to create an ortho-image on a basis of the three-dimensional coordinates of each feature point acquired by the coordinate acquisition step and the plurality of photographed images photographed by the photography step (see Figure 1, element 100 and refer for example to paragraph [0045]); in the ortho-image creation step, an ortho-image without a vehicle on the road is created by replacing the area around the vehicle on the road with the image of the road without the vehicle in another photographed image (see Figure 1, element 800 and refer for example to paragraph refer [0045] which discusses and ortho-image generating system, and to paragraph [0176] which discusses creating an ortho-image without a vehicle on the road is created by replacing the area around the vehicle on the road with the image of the road without the vehicle in another photographed image).
In regard to claim 3, Yoshida describes wherein the feature point is a predetermined point in an image photographed by the unmanned aerial vehicle or the model aerial vehicle, and wherein in the coordinate acquisition step, three-dimensional coordinates of the predetermined point are acquired from point group data in three-dimensional coordinates acquired for each point in the photographed image (refer for example to paragraphs [0048] and [0051]).
With regard to claim 4, Yoshida describes a coordinate storage means to store three-dimensional coordinates of a plurality of feature points (see Figure 1, element 400 and refer for example to paragraphs [0042] and [0081]); a photographed image storage means to store a plurality of photographed images of the plurality of feature points photographed by an unmanned aerial vehicle or a model aerial vehicle flying overhead above a ground in such a manner that each feature point is included in at least two of the photographed images (see Figure 1, element 200 and refer for example to paragraphs [0046] and [0085]); and an ortho-image creation means to create an ortho-image on a basis of the three-dimensional coordinates of each feature point stored in the coordinate storage means and the plurality of photographed images stored in the photographed image storage means (see Figure 1, element 100 and refer for example to paragraph [0045]), the ortho-image creation means creates an ortho-image in which no vehicle is on the road by replacing the area around the vehicle on the road with the image of the road without the vehicle in another photographed image (see Figure 1, element 800 and refer to paragraph refer [0045] which discusses and ortho-image generating system, and to paragraph [0176] which discusses creating an ortho-image without a vehicle on the road is created by replacing the area around the vehicle on the road with the image of the road without the vehicle in another photographed image).
In regard to claim 6, Yoshida describes wherein the feature point is a predetermined point in an image photographed by the unmanned aerial vehicle or the model aerial vehicle, and wherein the coordinate storage means stores three-dimensional coordinates of the predetermined point retrieved from point group data in three-dimensional coordinates acquired for each point in the photographed image (refer for example to paragraphs [0048] and [0051]).
With regard to claim 7, Yoshida describes an ortho-image created based on three-dimensional coordinates of a plurality of feature points and a plurality of images taken by an unmanned aerial vehicle or a model aerial vehicle flying overhead such that each of the plurality of feature points is included in at least two of the images, the ortho-image characterized by replacing the area around the vehicle on the road with the image of the road without the vehicle in another photographed image so that the vehicle is not on the road (see Figure 1, element 800 and refer for example to paragraphs [0045] and [0046] which discusses and ortho-image generating system using an unmanned aerial vehicle or a model aerial vehicle flying overhead, and to paragraph [0176] which discusses creating an ortho-image by replacing the area around the vehicle on the road with the image of the road without the vehicle in another photographed image so that the vehicle is not on the road).
As to claim 8, Yoshida describes an ortho-image characterized by replacing the area around the vehicle on the road with the image of the road without the vehicle in another photographed image so that the vehicle is not on the road (see Figure 1, element 800 and refer to paragraph [0045] which discusses an ortho-image generating system, and to paragraph [0176] which discusses creating an ortho-image by replacing the area around the vehicle on the road with the image of the road without the vehicle in another photographed image so that the vehicle is not on the road).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2 and 5 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
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Lu (translation) discloses a system similar to applicant’s claimed invention.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jose L. Couso whose telephone number is (571) 272-7388. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Friday from 5:30am to 1:30pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Matthew Bella, can be reached on 571-272-7778. 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 Center information webpage on the USPTO website. For more information about the Patent Center, see https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center. Should you have questions about access to the Patent Center, contact the Patent Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 571-272-4100 or via email at: ebc@uspto.gov .
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.
/JOSE L COUSO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2667
May 19, 2026
Prosecution Insights