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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Status of the Claims
This action is in response to applicant’s filing on October 31, 2024. Claims 1-18 are pending.
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged. Applicant has not complied with one or more conditions for receiving the benefit of an earlier filing date under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or 120 as follows:
The later-filed application must be an application for a patent for an invention which is also disclosed in the prior application (the parent or original nonprovisional application or provisional application). The disclosure of the invention in the parent application and in the later-filed application must be sufficient to comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, except for the best mode requirement. See Transco Products, Inc. v. Performance Contracting, Inc., 38 F.3d 551, 32 USPQ2d 1077 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
The disclosure of the prior-filed application, Provisional 63/156,246 and subsequent Application No. 17/685,590, fail to provide adequate support or enablement in the manner provided by 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph for one or more claims of this application. The prior applications fail to support the claimed subject matter of the present application. Minimal mention of the epipolar line, Essential Matrix and error can be found in the previous filings. However, the discussion of the presently claimed subject matter in the previous filings is not enough to comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112 In addition, the drawings in the present application are not found in either of the previous filings. Therefore, the previous filings fail to provide adequate support or enablement for the claims of this application
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 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea) without significantly more.
In sum, claims 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception to patentability (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) and do not include an inventive concept that is something “significantly more” than the judicial exception under the January 2019 patentable subject matter eligibility guidance (2019 PEG) analysis which follows.
Under the 2019 PEG step 1 analysis, it must first be determined whether the claims are directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention (i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter). Applying step 1 of the analysis for patentable subject matter to the claims, it is determined that the claims are directed to the statutory category of a process and a machine. Therefore, we proceed to step 2A, Prong 1.
Revised Guidance Step 2A - Prong 1
Under the 2019 PEG step 2A, Prong 1 analysis, it must be determined whether the claims recite an abstract idea that falls within one or more designated categories of patent ineligible subject matter (i.e., organizing human activity, mathematical concepts, and mental processes) that amount to a judicial exception to patentability.
Here, the claims recite the abstract idea of “computing a transform from a reference point to an epipolar line using an Essential Matrix derived from a reference frame camera motion in a live frame; computing a first appearance error between a first feature associated with the reference point and a second feature; computing a second appearance error between the first feature and a third feature using a perpendicular projection hypothesis; estimating a direction and a step size along the epipolar line using linear systems theory, thereby generating an optimized point on the epipolar line; computing a third appearance error between the first feature and a fourth feature associated with the optimized point; evaluating the first, second, and third appearance errors using a greedy, ordered optimization; and if the appearance error is less than a predetermined quality threshold, retaining the optimized point in tracking data, otherwise resetting the tracking data at a location associated with the reference point for reinitialization” as recited in independent claims 1 and 12.
The steps fall within one or more of the three enumerated 2019 PEG categories of patent ineligible subject matter, specifically, a mental process, that can be performed in the human mind since each of the above steps could alternatively be performed in the human mind or with the aid of pen and paper. This conclusion follows from CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., where our reviewing court held that section 101 did not embrace a process defined simply as using a computer to perform a series of mental steps that people, aware of each step, can and regularly do perform in their heads. 654 F.3d 1366, 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2011); see also In re Grams, 888 F.2d 835, 840-41 (Fed. Cir. 1989); In re Meyer, 688 F.2d 789, 794-95 (CCPA 1982); Elec. Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F. 3d 1350, 1354-1354 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“we have treated analyzing information by steps people go through in their minds, or by mathematical algorithms, without more, as essentially mental processes within the abstract-idea category”).
Additionally, mental processes remain unpatentable even when automated to reduce the burden on the user of what once could have been done with pen and paper. See CyberSource, 654 F.3d at 1375 (“That purely mental processes can be unpatentable, even when performed by a computer, was precisely the holding of the Supreme Court in Gottschalk v. Benson.’’).
Revised Guidance Step 2A - Prong 2
Under the 2019 PEG step 2A, Prong 2 analysis, the identified abstract idea to which the claim is directed does not include limitations that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, since the recited features of the abstract idea are being applied on a computer or computing device or via software programming that is simply being used as a tool (“apply it”) to implement the abstract idea. (See, e.g., MPEP §2106.05(f)).
Revised Guidance Step 2B
Under the 2019 PEG step 2B analysis, the additional elements are evaluated to determine whether they amount to something “significantly more” than the recited abstract idea, (i.e., an innovative concept). Here, the additional elements, such as system, memory comprising non-transitory computer-readable storage medium and a processor do not amount to an innovative concept since, as stated above in the step 2A, Prong 2 analysis, the claims are simply using the additional elements as a tool to carry out the abstract idea (i.e., “apply it”) on a computer or computing device and/or via software programming. (See, e.g., MPEP §2106.05(f)). The additional elements are specified at a high level of generality to simply implement the abstract idea and are not themselves being technologically improved. (See, e.g., MPEP §2106.05 I.A.); (see also, ¶¶ 95-98, 199-202 of the specification). See Alice, 573 U.S. at 223 (“[T]he mere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention.”). Thus, these elements, taken individually or together, do not amount to “significantly more” than the abstract ideas themselves.
The additional elements of the dependent claims merely refine and further limit the abstract idea of the independent claims and do not add any feature that is an “inventive concept” which cures the deficiencies of their respective parent claim under the 2019 PEG analysis. None of the dependent claims considered individually, including their respective limitations, include an “inventive concept” of some additional element or combination of elements sufficient to ensure that the claims in practice amount to something “significantly more” than patent-ineligible subject matter to which the claims are directed.
The elements of the instant process steps when taken in combination do not offer substantially more than the sum of the functions of the elements when each is taken alone. The claims as a whole, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself because the claims do not effect an improvement to another technology or technical field (e.g., the field of computer coding technology is not being improved); the claims do not amount to an improvement to the functioning of an electronic device itself which implements the abstract idea (e.g., the general purpose computer and/or the computer system which implements the process are not made more efficient or technologically improved); the claims do not perform a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (i.e., the claims do not use the abstract idea in the claimed process to bring about a physical change. See, e.g., Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175 (1081), where a physical change, and thus patentability, was imparted by the claimed process; contrast, Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584 (1078), where a physical change, and thus patentability, was not imparted by the claimed process); and the claims do not move beyond a general link of the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment
As for dependent claims 2-11 and 13-18, these claims include all the limitations of the independent claim from which they depend and therefore recite the same abstract idea. The claims also fail to add additional limitations that would amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, the invention of the claims as a whole, considering all claim elements both individually and in combination, are not patent eligible.
Furthermore, the limitation “providing the updated map and associated map data” as recited in claims 7-11 merely uses generic computing components (“computing system”) but also constitutes insignificant post-solution activity. The Supreme Court guides that the “prohibition against patenting abstract ideas ‘cannot be circumvented by attempting to limit the use of the formula to a particular technological environment’ or [by] adding ‘insignificant postsolution activity.’” Bilski, 561 U.S. at 610-11 (quoting Diehr, 450 U.S. at 191-92). That is, the term “providing” may be merely transmitting data. Since the specification does not define the term “providing” the term is not clear and therefore does not recite structure used by the system in the “providing” step. Therefore, the structure is directed to basic concepts that are similar to abstract ideas previously identified by the courts
Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure:
Chi et al., US 2019/0197982 A1, teaches a method for calibrating a device having a first sensor and a second sensor. The method includes capturing sensor data using the first sensor and the second sensor. The device maintains a calibration profile including a translation parameter and a rotation parameter to model a spatial relationship between the first sensor and the second sensor. The method also includes determining a calibration level associated with the calibration profile at a first time. The method further includes determining, based on the calibration level, to perform a calibration process. The method further includes performing the calibration process at the first time by generating one or both of a calibrated translation parameter and a calibrated rotation parameter and replacing one or both of the translation parameter and the rotation parameter with one or both of the calibrated translation parameter and the calibrated rotation parameter.
Mollis, US 2018/0342100 A1, teaches methods and systems for generating a 3D panograph of a 3D space are provided. The method includes receiving connectivity information between at least a first image and a second image of a plurality of images, determining correspondences between the first image and the second image using the connectivity information, determining a first morph mesh for the first image and a second morph mesh for the second image using the correspondences, and generating the 3D panograph. The 3D panograph includes the first morph mesh, the second morph mesh, and the connectivity information. The 3D panograph is navigable. A method for navigating the 3D panograph is also provided. The method includes, in response to receiving a navigation request from the first image to the second image, displaying, on a display device, successive interpolations from the first image to the second image using a morph mesh.
Wu et al., “Epipolar Rectification by Singular Value Decomposition of Essential Matrix” teaches image rectification is an important stage of applying a pair of projective transformations, or homographies, to a pair of stereo images, so that epipolar lines in the original images map to horizontally aligned lines in the rectified images. Considering that for some stereo rigs the intrinsic parameters of the cameras are known but their external parameters are unknown, in this paper, we present a novel method for stereo rectification based on the essential matrix which is derived from the fundamental matrix. Without any optimization process, closed-form analytical solutions of the projective transformations for epipolar rectification can be directly obtained by conducting SVD on the essential matrix. Experimental results show the proposed rectification method not only has higher efficiency and rectification precision, but also its scale invariance and robustness are superior to existing methods.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1 and 12 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101 set forth in this Office action.
Claims 2-11 and 13-18 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101 set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIAN P SWEENEY whose telephone number is (313)446-4906. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday from 7:30AM to 5:00PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, James J. Lee, can be reached at telephone number 571-270-5965. 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 Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center to authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to the USPTO patent electronic filing system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
Examiner interviews are available via a variety of formats. See MPEP § 713.01. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/InterviewPractice.
/BRIAN P SWEENEY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3668