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 .
Response to Arguments
Claims 21, 23-29 and 31-36 are pending and the examiner has removed the double patenting rejection along with the objection to the abstract.
The examiner disagrees with the applicant that claims 21 and 23-28 are directed to a process, which falls under statutory subject matter.
Claim 21 and 23-27 have been amended to recite: A computer-implemented method for identifying candidate changes in a space based on representations of the space performed by a computer comprising a processor and a memory storing instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the computer to perform the method, the computer-implemented method comprising. As is shown supra, claims 21 and 23-27 have been amended to include a processor but only in the preamble; the preamble isn’t given patentable weight unless it is referred to in the body of the claim. The examiner suggests moving the processor performing the steps of aligning, computing, selecting, determining, determining, defining, defining and outputting to the body of claims 21 and 23-28 (note: claim 28 only comprises the step of combining) in order to overcome the 101 rejection.
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 21 and 23-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because 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 preambles of claims 21 and 23-27 have all been amended to “A computer-implemented method for identifying candidate changes in a space based on representations of the space performed by a computer comprising a processor and a memory storing instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the computer to perform the method, the computer-implemented method comprising:” however the steps of aligning, computing, selecting, determining, determining, defining, defining and outputting of the body of the claims are nothing more than software instructions. Software instructions are non-statutory under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claims 28 depends from claim 21 and comprises the step of combining. Therefore claim 28 has the same problem as claim 21 and is rejected under the same rationale.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 29 and 31-36 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Regarding claim 29, the prior art doesn’t teach:
29. (CURRENTLY AMENDED) A server for identifying candidate changes in a space based on representations of the space, the server comprising: a processor; and a memory storing instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the server to: align a previous representation of the space and a current representation of the space to produce aligned representations; compute a structural similarity between the aligned representations to identify a plurality of potential changes; for each of the plurality of potential changes: select the potential change for evaluation; determine whether the structural similarity of the potential change is above a predetermined threshold by computing a similarity value based on RGB image data, and if so, discard the potential change; determine whether the potential change corresponds to an edge in at least one of the previous representation or the current representation, and if so, discard the potential change; define the potential change as a candidate change if it is neither discarded based on the structural similarity nor the edge correspondence; define a bounding box for each candidate change, the bounding box encompassing the identified candidate change; and output the candidate changes.
Regarding claim 31, the prior art doesn’t teach:
31. (CURRENTLY AMENDED) A server for identifying candidate changes in a space based on representations of the space, the server comprising: a processor; and a memory storing instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the server to: align a previous representation of the space and a current representation of the space to produce aligned representations; compute a structural similarity between the aligned representations to identify a plurality of potential changes; for each of the plurality of potential changes: select the potential change for evaluation; determine whether the structural similarity of the potential change is above a predetermined threshold and if so, discard the potential change; determine whether the potential change corresponds to an edge in at least one of the previous representation or the current representation, and if so, discard the potential change; define the potential change as a candidate change if it is neither discarded based on the structural similarity nor the edge correspondence; define a bounding box for each candidate change by identifying upper and lower bounds of pixel coordinates representing the candidate change, the bounding box encompassing the identified candidate change; and output the candidate changes.
Regarding claim 32, the prior art doesn’t teach:
32. (CURRENTLY AMENDED) A server for identifying candidate changes in a space based on representations of the space, the server comprising: a processor; and a memory storing instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the server to: align a previous representation of the space and a current representation of the space to produce aligned representations; compute a structural similarity between the aligned representations to identify a plurality of potential changes; for each of the plurality of potential changes: select the potential change for evaluation; determine whether the structural similarity of the potential change is above a predetermined threshold, and if so, discard the potential change as a non- candidate change; determine whether the potential change corresponds to an edge in at least one of the previous representation or the current representation, and if so, discard the potential change; define the potential change as a candidate change if it is neither discarded based on the structural similarity nor the edge correspondence; define a bounding box for each candidate change, the bounding box encompassing the identified candidate change; and output the candidate changes.
Regarding claim 33, the prior art doesn’t teach:
33. (CURRENTLY AMENDED) A server for identifying candidate changes in a space based on representations of the space, the server comprising: a processor; and a memory storing instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the server to: align a previous representation of the space and a current representation of the space by warping the representations using scaling and translation to produce aligned representations; compute a structural similarity between the aligned representations to identify a plurality of potential changes; for each of the plurality of potential changes: select the potential change for evaluation; determine whether the structural similarity of the potential change is above a predetermined threshold, and if so, discard the potential change; determine whether the potential change corresponds to an edge in at least one of the previous representation or the current representation, and if so, discard the potential change; define the potential change as a candidate change if it is neither discarded based on the structural similarity nor the edge correspondence; define a bounding box for each candidate change, the bounding box encompassing the identified candidate change; and output the candidate changes.
Regarding claim 34, the prior art doesn’t teach:
34. (CURRENTLY AMENDED) A server for identifying candidate changes in a space based on representations of the space, the server comprising: a processor; and a memory storing instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the server to: align a previous representation of the space and a current representation of the space to produce aligned representations; normalize the previous and current representations to adjust lighting conditions, contrast, or blur compute a structural similarity between the aligned representations to identify a plurality of potential changes; for each of the plurality of potential changes: select the potential change for evaluation; determine whether the structural similarity of the potential change is above a predetermined threshold, and if so, discard the potential change; determine whether the potential change corresponds to an edge in at least one of the previous representation or the current representation, and if so, discard the potential change; define the potential change as a candidate change if it is neither discarded based on the structural similarity nor the edge correspondence; define a bounding box for each candidate change, the bounding box encompassing the identified candidate change; and output the candidate changes.
Regarding claim 35, the prior art doesn’t teach:
35. (CURRENTLY AMENDED) A server for identifying candidate changes in a space based on representations of the space, the server comprising: a processor; and a memory storing instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the server to: align a previous representation of the space and a current representation of the space to produce aligned representations; compute a structural similarity between the aligned representations to identify a plurality of potential changes; for each of the plurality of potential changes: select the potential change for evaluation; determine whether the structural similarity of the potential change is above a predetermined threshold, and if so, discard the potential change; determine whether the potential change corresponds to an edge in at least one of the previous representation or the current representation by filtering out potential changes within a threshold distance of an edge, and if so, discard the potential change; define the potential change as a candidate change if it is neither discarded based on the structural similarity nor the edge correspondence; define a bounding box for each candidate change, the bounding box encompassing the identified candidate change; and output the candidate changes.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MAURICE L MCDOWELL, JR whose telephone number is (571)270-3707. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri: 2pm-10pm.
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, Said A. Broome can be reached at 571-272-2931. 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.
/MAURICE L. MCDOWELL, JR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2612
