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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 13 December 2024 and 08 January 2025 are is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite abstract ideas falling within the following Patent Eligibility Guidelines (PEG) groupings (available online at: https://www.uspto.gov/patents/laws/examination-policy/subject-matter-eligibility):
Mathematical concepts: Coordinate transformation (scaling and translation of two-dimensional frames). See 2019 PEG, Part Two, Step 2A, Prong One (mathematical formulas, calculations, and data structures are abstract ideas).
Methods of organizing human activity: The claim organizes the human activity of reviewing and correcting training data by normalizing frames and presenting them for visual inspection. See 2019 PEG, Part Two, Step 2A, Prong One (fundamental economic practices, commercial/legal interactions, managing personal behavior/relationships).
Mental processes: Observing, evaluating, and determining correctness of frame information through visual inspection. See 2019 PEG, Part Two, Step 2A, Prong One (observations, evaluations, opinions that can be performed in the human mind).
A detailed analysis of independent claims 1 (apparatus), 10 (method) and 11 (computer readable medium) is provided below.
Step 1: Statutory Category Determination
Similar claims 1 (apparatus), 10 (method) and 11 (computer readable medium) are each directed to one of the statutory categories of patentable under 35 U.S.C. § 101. The claims thus satisfy the threshold requirement of Step 1.
Step 2A, Prong 1: Identification of Judicial Exception(s)
The claims recite a judicial exception under the abstract idea grouping.
“obtaining…reference frame information…and verification frame information”
This is data collection/receipt—a mental process and data manipulation step.
“normalizing a size of a reference frame…and normalizing a size and position of a corresponding verification frame in accordance with the normalization”
This recites a mathematical concept: coordinate transformation via scaling and translation.
Specifically: scaling factors (e.g., 1.25 = 500/400; 1.67 = 500/300) and translation operations (e.g., +200 pixels in x, +300 pixels in y).
Per the specification (¶[0049]): “normalization processing refers to conversion processing of two-dimensional coordinates of a frame.”
These are mathematical formulas and calculations performed on geometric data.
“displaying…a normalized reference frame at a preset position…and displaying, in a superimposed manner, a normalized verification frame at a relative position”
This is a result-oriented mental process: organizing and presenting information to a user.
The claim does not recite how the display is generated or what technological improvement to the display apparatus itself is achieved.
Abstract Idea Groupings (2019 PEG):
The claims recite abstract ideas falling within the following PEG groupings:
Mathematical concepts: Coordinate transformation (scaling and translation of two-dimensional frames). See 2019 PEG, Part Two, Step 2A, Prong One, (mathematical formulas, calculations, and data structures are abstract ideas).
Methods of organizing human activity: The claim organizes the human activity of reviewing and correcting training data by normalizing frames and presenting them for visual inspection. See 2019 PEG, Part Two, Step 2A, Prong One, (fundamental economic practices, commercial/legal interactions, managing personal behavior/relationships).
Mental processes: Observing, evaluating, and determining correctness of frame information through visual inspection. See 2019 PEG, Part Two, Step 2A, Prong One, (observations, evaluations, opinions that can be performed in the human mind).
Conclusion on Step 2A, Prong 1: Judicial exception recited – Abstract idea (mathematical concepts, organizing human activity, mental processes).
Step 2A, Prong 2: Integration into a Practical Application
The claims do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
No Improvement to Computer Functioning:
The normalization steps (scaling and translation) are well-understood, routine mathematical operations. They do not improve the speed, efficiency, or functioning of the processor itself.
The specification provides no technical evidence that normalization reduces latency, improves memory utilization, or enhances processor performance. The specification describes the purpose of normalization (¶[0049]): “to make it easy to grasp the relative positions and relative sizes between a reference frame and verification frames of each image”—this is a user-convenience benefit, not a technological improvement.
Displaying data on a screen is a generic output function, not an improvement to computer architecture or operation.
No Transformation of an Article:
The claim does not transform a physical article or material.
The images themselves are not physically transformed; they are merely displayed with superimposed frame overlays.
Frame information (coordinates and dimensions) is data; manipulating data does not constitute transformation of an article under Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175 (1981).
No Particular Machine Improvement:
While the claim recites “an information processing apparatus,” the apparatus is generic: it has a processor, memory, input device, and output device (¶[0035]–[0041]).
The claim does not specify a novel hardware configuration, a non-conventional processor architecture, or a specific technological problem solved by the apparatus.
Per Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208 (2014), merely implementing an abstract idea on a generic computer does not render the idea patent-eligible.
Extra-Solution Activity and Field-of-Use Limitations:
The obtaining, normalizing, and displaying steps are all necessary to perform the abstract idea itself; they are not extra-solution activity.
The claim is limited to a field of use (training data verification), but field-of-use limitations alone do not integrate an abstract idea into a practical application. See 2019 PEG, Part Two, Step 2A, Prong Two, (“a field-of-use limitation does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application”).
B. Specification Support
The specification describes the technical problem as follows (¶[0006]–[0008]):
Users may input ground truth information (frame coordinates) incorrectly.
Existing methods only improve efficiency for checking a single image.
The invention provides “an environment in which it is possible to efficiently determine whether or not there is an abnormality in the position and size of a verification segment.”
The specification does not explain how the normalization and display steps solve a technological problem. The solution is organizational and presentational:
Normalizing frames to a preset size allows visual comparison across images.
Displaying frames in a superimposed manner allows the user to spot outliers.
These are benefits to the user’s workflow, not improvements to the technology itself. The specification provides no technical metrics (e.g., “reduces processing time by X%,” “improves detection accuracy by Y%,” “reduces memory footprint by Z%”).
C. Comparison to Precedent
Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank: Merely implementing an abstract idea (here, mathematical coordinate transformation and data organization) on a generic computer is insufficient. Alice, 573 U.S. at 221–22.
Berkheimer v. HP Inc., 881 F.3d 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2018): To overcome a § 101 rejection, the applicant must provide evidence that the claim elements are not well-understood, routine, and conventional. Here, the specification provides no such evidence.
Conclusion on Step 2A, Prong 2: NOT integrated into a practical application – The claims recite abstract mathematical operations and data organization without improving computer functionality, transforming an article, or solving a technological problem.
Step 2B: Significantly More Than the Exception (well-understood, routine, and conventional analysis)
The additional claim elements do NOT amount to “significantly more” than the judicial exception.
A. Identification of Additional Elements
Beyond the abstract idea (normalizing and displaying), the claim includes:
Obtaining images and frame information.
Displaying at a “preset position” with “superimposed manner” and “relative position.”
Implicit: execution by “an information processing apparatus.”
B. Well-understood, routine, and conventional Assessment
Under Berkheimer, additional elements are “significantly more” only if they are not well-understood, routine, conventional (WURC) in the field.
Element 1: Obtaining images and frame information
Receiving data from storage or input devices is a routine, conventional computer function.
No evidence in the specification that this step is non-conventional.
Finding: well-understood, routine, and conventional.
Element 2: Normalizing (scaling and translation)
Coordinate transformation via scaling and translation is a well-known mathematical operation in computer graphics and image processing.
The specification describes the scaling factors (e.g., 1.25, 1.67) as simple ratios: width/reference width, height/reference height (¶[0058]).
Translation is a standard linear transformation: adding offsets to coordinates (¶[0059]).
No novel algorithm, non-conventional approach, or technical improvement is claimed or described.
Finding: well-understood, routine, and conventional.
Element 3: Displaying at preset position with superimposed frames
Displaying data on a screen is a routine output function.
Superimposing graphical elements (frames) is a conventional display technique in image processing software.
No novel rendering algorithm, hardware acceleration, or display improvement is claimed.
Finding: well-understood, routine, and conventional.
Element 4: Generic information processing apparatus
The apparatus comprises standard components: Computer-readable medium, CPU, memory, storage, input/output devices (¶[0035]–[0041]).
No specialized hardware, non-conventional architecture, or novel processor configuration is described.
Finding: well-understood, routine, and conventional.
C. Evidentiary Considerations
The specification provides no technical comparisons, performance metrics, or implementation details that would support a finding that any element is non-conventional:
No comparison to prior art methods or systems.
No performance data (e.g., processing speed, accuracy improvement, memory usage).
No novel algorithmic approach or unexpected technical result.
Conclusion on Step 2B: Additional elements do NOT amount to “significantly more” – All additional elements are well-understood, routine, and conventional in the field of computer graphics, image processing, and data display.
Conclusion: § 101 Eligibility Determination
INELIGIBLE UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 101
Similar independent claims 1, 10, and 11 recites a judicial exception (abstract idea comprising mathematical concepts, methods of organizing human activity, and mental processes) that is:
Not integrated into a practical application (Step 2A, Prong 2): The claims do not improve computer functionality, transform an article, or solve a technological problem. The specification describes only user-convenience benefits (easier visual comparison), not technological improvements.
Not supported by “significantly more” (Step 2B): All additional claim elements (obtaining data, performing standard coordinate transformations, displaying results on a generic apparatus) are well-understood, routine, and conventional in the field. The specification provides no evidence of non-conventional implementation or unexpected technical results.
The claims fall squarely within the Alice framework: they recite an abstract idea (organizing and presenting information to assist human decision-making) implemented on a generic computer using routine, conventional steps.
Additionally, dependent claims 2-9 have been analyzed and are rejected for the reasons indicated above. Dependent claims 2-9 each recite additional details related to the abstract ideas of organizing and presenting information to assist human decision-making without adding significantly more.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-11 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the above 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejection. The prior art of record, alone or in combination, fails to teach or suggest at least the limitations of: “…displaying a normalized reference frame at a preset position, for each of the plurality of images, and displaying, in a superimposed manner, a normalized verification frame at a relative position that is based on a normalized position and size corresponding to the normalized reference frame” as recited in the independent claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Stephen R Koziol whose telephone number is (408)918-7630. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 AM - 4 PM Pacific Time.
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, Stephen R Koziol can be reached at (408)918-7630. 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.
/Stephen R Koziol/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2665
Prosecution Insights