CTNF 18/939,327 CTNF 95410 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Priority 02-26 AIA Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55. Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on November 6 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is considered by examiner. Specification 06-11 AIA 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 following title is an example amended title: Image Processing Apparatus and Method for Correlation Matching between Images. 07-30-03-h AIA Claim Interpretation 07-30-03 AIA The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f): (f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof. The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph: An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof. 07-30-05 The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked. As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph: (A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function; (B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and (C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function. Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitations are: Claim 1 “first calculation unit” element 104 with the horizontal correlation value total sum holding unit 204 Figure 2 ¶ [0028], [0033]-[0035], Fig 3 and ¶ [0039]-[0044], Fig 4 and ¶ [0045]-[0056], Fig 12 and ¶ [0097]-[0099], which is collectively described to be realized by a computer system ¶ [0122]. “second calculation unit” element 104 with the vertical correlation value total sum holding unit 205 Figure 2 ¶ [0028], [0036]-[0035], Fig 3 and ¶ [0039]-[0044], Fig 5 and ¶ [0057]-[0061], Fig 12 and ¶ [0100]-[0103], which is collectively described to be realized by a computer system ¶ [0122]. Claim 2 “acquisition unit” element 105 Fig 2 ¶ [0029], to acquire parallax information, based on the parallax calculation shown in Fig 11, 12 and described in prose in ¶ [0091]-[0096]. Under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f), the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims each incorporate particular detailed computer processing operations that are considered an improvement upon existing technological processes and therefore are statutory eligible. See Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1336-37, 118 USPQ2d 1684, 1689-90 (Fed. Cir. 2016) and MPEP § 2106(II). Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, each are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 07-04-01 AIA 07-04 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 13-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Claim 13 recites a method for calculating a total sum of a correlation value for different groupings of data between a first and second image with four different calculations limitations, each directed to mathematical calculations for different groupings of data. Claim 14 recites the method for acquiring data based on a calculation from data of the claim in which it depends, claim 13. Claim 15 recites the method for acquiring data based on a calculation from data of the claim in which it depends, claim 13. Claim 16 recites the method for acquiring data based on a calculation from data of the claim in which it depends, claim 13. Claim 17 recites a non-transitory storage medium storing instructions for calculating a total sum of a correlation value for different groupings of data between a first and second image with four different calculations limitations, each directed to mathematical calculations for different groupings of data. The claim does not recite additional elements to differentiate the claim language from an abstract idea reciting a mathematical concept based on mathematical calculations and determining mathematical relationships. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(I). Claim 18 recites the non-transitory storage medium for acquiring data based on a calculation from data of the claim in which it depends, claim 17. Claim 19 recites the non-transitory storage medium for acquiring data based on a calculation from data of the claim in which it depends, claim 17. Claim 20 recites the non-transitory storage medium for acquiring data based on a calculation from data of the claim in which it depends, claim 17. The claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. In each claim, the claim does not recite additional elements to differentiate the claim language from an abstract idea reciting a mathematical concept based on mathematical calculations and determining mathematical relationships. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(I). In claim 17-20, each claim as drafted is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mathematical concept but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting a “non-transitory storage medium storing a program causing an apparatus to execute a method,” nothing in the claim element precludes the steps from being interpreted as a mathematical concept. For example, but for the “non-transitory storage medium” in the context of claim 17, the claim is directed to four limitations for “calculating…a total sum of a correlation value” Claims 18-20 each recite similar mathematical limitations. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation based on mathematical concepts but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, these claims each recite an abstract idea. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The computer components are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., generic non-transitory storage medium storing a program to perform mathematical calculations to compare two images) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, the computer components do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, the aforementioned claims are directed to abstract ideas. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a generic placeholder-related computer components, the non-transitory storage medium storing a program to perform mathematical calculations to determine mathematical relationships amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an invention concept. The claims are not patent eligible. Regarding Claims 1, and dependent claims, under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f), the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims each incorporate particular detailed computer processing operations that are considered an improvement upon existing technological processes and therefore are statutory eligible. See Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1336-37, 118 USPQ2d 1684, 1689-90 (Fed. Cir. 2016) and MPEP § 2106(II). Should the claim interpretation be changed, such that the claims are not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f), the claims, as currently drafted, would also be subject to the abstract idea interpretation as discussed above. Should additional claims currently rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) be intended to be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) and reconsidered as an improvement upon existing technological processes under Enfish logic, claim language examples are discussed in the MPEP § 2181(I)(A). Examiner Note regarding Prior Art The prior art was carefully considered but was not identified to teach the entirety of the independent claims for the claimed invention. However, the claims will be carefully reconsidered before a final determination of patentability can be reached. Allowable Subject Matter 12-151-07 AIA 07-97 12-51-07 Claim s 1-12 allowed. As discussed above, Claim 1 is interpreted with claim limitations under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f). The first calculation unit and second calculation unit each employ specific algorithms to perform the arithmetic, as discussed in the specification (at least ¶ [0039]-[0061]) and shown in Figures 3-5. Claims 2-12 are dependent on claim 1 and therefore allowable for similar reasons. Conclusion 07-96 AIA The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Yukinari et al (JP 2018/026032, disclosed in IDS 11/06/2024) teach a method and system for calculating correlation values between target pixels in a target region of a first image and a second image with consideration of the horizontal and vertical region, which the current application claims are distinguishable by performing matching for entire rows or columns and determining a total sum correlation value between the matching region, where the matching image regions partially overlap and analysis performed on an edge portion of data. Nakamura et al (JP 439189) teach a method and system for image matching between a reference image and a comparison image in which a correlation value is determined based on similar regions in each image with regions determined in each region in a horizontal and vertical direction and performing summation of the given row or column and determining a total sum for a given region, which the current application claims are distinguishable by performing matching for entire rows or columns and determining a total sum correlation value between the matching region, where the matching image regions partially overlap and analysis performed on an edge portion of data. Nanri et al (US 2015/0036917) teach a stereo image processing device and method including extraction of pixel data from a first and second image to determine disparity values between the two values, which the current application claims are distinguishable by performing matching for entire rows or columns and determining a total sum correlation value between the matching region, where the matching image regions partially overlap and analysis performed on an edge portion of data. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KATHLEEN M BROUGHTON whose telephone number is (571)270-7380. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00-5:00. 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, John Villecco can be reached at (571) 272-7319. 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. /KATHLEEN M BROUGHTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2661 Application/Control Number: 18/939,327 Page 2 Art Unit: 2661 Application/Control Number: 18/939,327 Page 3 Art Unit: 2661 Application/Control Number: 18/939,327 Page 4 Art Unit: 2661 Application/Control Number: 18/939,327 Page 5 Art Unit: 2661 Application/Control Number: 18/939,327 Page 7 Art Unit: 2661 Application/Control Number: 18/939,327 Page 8 Art Unit: 2661 Application/Control Number: 18/939,327 Page 9 Art Unit: 2661 Application/Control Number: 18/939,327 Page 10 Art Unit: 2661 Application/Control Number: 18/939,327 Page 11 Art Unit: 2661
Prosecution Insights