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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 15 is objected to because of the following informalities: “a device” and “the device” in line 2 should read “a computing device” and “the computing device” respectively. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the first second element" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claims 2-7 depending on claim 1 are also rejected.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the first second element" in line 9. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claims 9-14 depending on claim 8 are also rejected.
Claim 15 recites the limitation "the first second element" in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claims 16-20 depending on claim 15 are also rejected.
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.
Claim 15 recites “A computer program product---“. The claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because the broadest reasonable interpretation of “a computer program product—” encompasses a signal and signals are non-statutory. Specification as filed para 0126 discloses “a computer program product---” as a signal. Claims 16-20 depending on claim 15 are also rejected.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 1-5, 8-12 and 15-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by McAuley et al. (US20110052063) hereafter McAuley.
1. Regarding claim 1, as best understood by the examiner, McAuley discloses a computer-implementation method (figs 1-4 and paras 0017-0027 shows and discloses a computer implemented method), comprising:
determining, based on a feature of an input image (figs 1-3, fig 1 (24 is a feature extractor extracting features from the input images 20), and a first element of the input image (figs 2-3 shows the first element X1 of the input image), a second element in the first element (figs 2-3 shows determining the second element X2 based (from) on the first element X1) meeting the above claim limitations, see para 0019-0025 for the explanation
PNG
media_image1.png
360
633
media_image1.png
Greyscale
);
detecting a third element in the second element based on the feature and the second element (figs 2-3 shows the third element X3 detected in the second element X2based on the feature and the (i.e features extracted as in fig 1 and at para 0025))
PNG
media_image1.png
360
633
media_image1.png
Greyscale
, the first second element and third elements corresponding to respective regions in the input image (as seen in fig 2)
PNG
media_image2.png
434
623
media_image2.png
Greyscale
; and
determining, based on the determination of the second element and the detection of the third element, a hierarchy indicating relationship among elements in the input image (figs 3-4 and para 0027-0029 shows and discloses determining, based on the determination of the second element and the detection of the third element
PNG
media_image1.png
360
633
media_image1.png
Greyscale
, a hierarchy indicating relationship among elements in the input image meeting the claim limitations)
PNG
media_image3.png
491
613
media_image3.png
Greyscale
.
2. Regarding claim 2, McAuley discloses the method of claim 1, wherein determining the hierarchy comprises: adding the second element to the hierarchy as a child node of the first element; and if the third element is detected, adding the third element to the hierarchy as a child node of the second element (figs 3 and para 0023-0029 shows and discloses wherein determining the hierarchy comprises: adding the second element X2 to the hierarchy as a child node of the first element X1; and if the third element X3 is detected, adding the third element X3 to the hierarchy as a child node of the second element X2 meeting the claim limitations).
3. Regarding claim 2, McAuley discloses the method of claim 2, further comprising: detecting a fourth element in the second element based on the feature, the second element and the third element, the fourth element corresponding to a region in the input image; and if the fourth element is detected, adding the fourth element to the hierarchy as a child node of the second element (fig 3 shows the detecting a fourth element in the second element based on the feature (i.e fig 3 shows the sub nodes (i.e dotted elements next to the X3) which are derived from the second element X2), the second element and the third element, the fourth element corresponding to a region in the input image (as seen in figs 2-3); and if the fourth element is detected, adding the fourth element to the hierarchy as a child node of the second element (as seen in fig 3) meeting the claim limitations).
4. Regarding claim 4, McAuley discloses the method of claim 1, wherein detecting the third element comprises: obtaining an output of an element decoder based on the feature and a position of the second element in the input image (figs 2-3 shows a position second element X2 in the input image); and if it is determined that the output represents a part of the second element, determining that the third element is detected (fig 3 shows the part of the output of the second element determining that the third element X3 is detected).
5. Regarding claim 5, McAuley discloses the method of claim 4, further comprising: if it is determined that the output represents an end of element detection, determining that the third element is not detected (Fig 4 shows the output level at the X1 level (i.e Train) with no X2 level and also no X3 level meeting the above limitations of if it is determined that the output represents an end of element detection, determining that the third element is not detected).
6. Claim 8 is a corresponding device claim of claim 1. See the explanation of claim 1. Figs 1-4 and paras 0017-0018 shows and discloses an electronic device 10 comprising: a processing unit; and a memory coupled to the processing unit and comprising instructions stored thereon, the instructions when executed by the processing unit causing the electronic device to perform acts of claim 8.
7. Claim 9 is a corresponding device claim of claim 2. See the corresponding explanation of claim 2.
8. Claim 10 is a corresponding device claim of claim 3. See the corresponding explanation of claim 3.
9. Claim 11 is a corresponding device claim of claim 4. See the corresponding explanation of claim 4.
10. Claim 12 is a corresponding device claim of claim 5. See the corresponding explanation of claim 5.
11. Claim 15 is a corresponding computer program product claim of claim 1. See the corresponding explanation of claim 1. McAuley discloses a computer program product comprising computer executable instructions that, when executed by a device, cause the device to perform acts of claim 15 in figs 1-4 and paras 0017-0018.
12. Claim 16 is a corresponding computer program product claim of claim 2. See the corresponding explanation of claim 2.
13. Claim 17 is a corresponding computer program product claim of claim 3. See the corresponding explanation of claim 3.
14. Claim 18 is a corresponding computer program product claim of claim 4. See the corresponding explanation of claim 4.
15. Claim 19 is a corresponding computer program product claim of claim 5. See the corresponding explanation of claim 5.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 7 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McAuley in view of NPL1 (Content and Hierarchy in Pixel-Based Methods for Reverse Engineering Interface Structure, Morgan Dixon et al., CHI, 2011, Pages 969-978) hereafter NPL1.
16. Regarding claim 7, McAuley discloses the method of claim 1. McAuley shows and discloses an input image (figs 1-4 and paras 0026-0027). McAuley is silent and however fails to disclose wherein the input image comprises an image of a user interface, and the element comprises a user interface element.
NPL1 discloses wherein the input image comprises an image of a user interface, and the element comprises a user interface element (page 971 cols 1-2, page 972 cols 1-2 and page 974 cols 1-2 , figs 4e and 7 discloses images of the user interface and the element comprises a user interface element in the hierarchical model meeting the claim limitations). Before the effective filing date of the invention was made, McAuley and NPL1 are combinable because they are from the same field of endeavor and analogous art of image processing. The suggestion/motivation would be an improved performance method (page 977 “discussions and Limitations” section.). Therefore, it would be obvious and within one of ordinary skill in the art to have recognized the advantages of NPL1 in the method of McAuley to obtain the invention as specified in claim 7.
17. Claim 14 is a corresponding device claim of claim 7. See the corresponding explanation of claim 7.
Examiner's Note: Examiner has cited figures, and paragraphs in the references as applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested for the applicant, in preparing the responses, to fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner. Examiner has also cited references in PTO892 but not relied on, which are relevant and pertinent to the applicant’s disclosure, and may also be reading (anticipatory/obvious) on the claims and claimed limitations. Applicant is advised to consider the references in preparing the response/amendments in-order to expedite the prosecution.
NOTE: US8873812 and US20100128984 cited in PTO892 may also be anticipatory/obvious arts reading on the claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAYESH PATEL whose telephone number is (571)270-1227. The examiner can normally be reached IFW Mon-FRI.
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, Andrew Bee can be reached at 571-270-5183. 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.
/JAYESH A PATEL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2677
/JAYESH PATEL/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2677
