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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-20 are pending and rejected in the 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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claims are directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claims 1-9 are ineligible:
As to step one, claim 1 recites a series of steps and, therefore, is a system which is a statutory category.
As to step 2A-prong one, claim 1 recites an electronic device comprising:
determine a primary object to be searched for from among the objects in the image,
determine an object associated with the primary object as a secondary object from among other objects in the image,
generate an image query comprising a portion of the image comprising at least one of the primary object or the secondary object, and comprising a request for information related to the primary object. The limitations, as drafted, are a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations in the mind but for the recitation of the generic computer components. The “a camera”, “a communication circuit”, “memory storing one or more computer programs”, and “cause the electronic device to” amounts to mere generic computer components. That is other than reciting “a camera”, “a communication circuit”, “memory storing one or more computer programs”, and “cause the electronic device to” nothing in the claim element precludes the steps from practically being performed in the mind. Thus, claim 1 is not patentable eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
For example, but for the device, “determine a primary object to be searched for from among the objects in the image” encompasses mentally a person determine a primary object to be searched for from among the objects in the image.
Next, but for the device, “determine an object associated with the primary object as a secondary object from among other objects in the image” encompasses mentally a person determine an object associated with the primary object as a secondary object from among other objects in the image.
Furthermore, but for the device, “generate an image query comprising a portion of the image comprising at least one of the primary object or the secondary object, and comprising a request for information related to the primary object” encompasses mentally a person generate an image query comprising a portion of the image comprising at least one of the primary object or the secondary object, and comprising a request for information related to the primary object. The mere nominal recitation of a system do not take the claim limitations out of the mental processes grouping. If claim limitation(s), under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation(s) in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
As to Step 2A-prong two, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Claim 1 recites
a camera;
a communication circuit;
memory storing one or more computer programs; and
one or more processors communicatively coupled to the camera, the communication circuit, and the memory, wherein the one or more computer programs include computer-executable instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors individually or collectively, cause the electronic device to:
extract, from an image obtained from the camera, a portion of the image comprising objects, and
transmit the image query to a server by using the communication circuit.
Here, “a camera”, “a communication circuit”, “memory storing one or more computer programs;”, and “one or more processors communicatively coupled to the camera, the communication circuit, and the memory, wherein the one or more computer programs include computer-executable instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors individually or collectively, cause the electronic device to:” amounts to mere generic computer components to apply the abstract idea which does not amount to an inventive concept.
Next, “extract, from an image obtained from the camera, a portion of the image comprising objects,” encompasses insignificant extra-solution activity and amounts to mere data gathering (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Further, “transmit the image query to a server by using the communication circuit.” encompasses insignificant extra-solution activity and amounts to mere data gathering (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, the claim is directed to an abstract idea. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
As to step 2B, the claim as a whole does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above, claim 1 additional limitation amounts to no more than mere extra solution activity and generic computer components do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the generic computer components are implementing the limitations in a generic manner. Thus, even when viewed as a whole, nothing in the claim adds significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. Mere evaluating an image and search for the object in the image cannot provide an inventive concept. Thus, claim 1 is not patentable eligible under 35 USC 101.
Under the 2019 PEG, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B. Here, the “extract, from an image obtained from the camera, a portion of the image comprising objects,” and “transmit the image query to a server by using the communication circuit.” steps are considered to be extra-solution activity in Step 2A, and thus it is re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if it is more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The specification does not provide any indication that the limitations are anything other than extra solution activity.
Here, “extract, from an image obtained from the camera, a portion of the image comprising objects,” is merely data gathering. OIP Techs court decision cited in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) indicate that mere retrieving data is a well-understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here).
Here, “transmit the image query to a server by using the communication circuit.” is merely data gathering. OIP Techs court decision cited in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) indicate that mere retrieving data is a well-understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here).
Accordingly, a conclusion that the “extract, from an image obtained from the camera, a portion of the image comprising objects,” and “transmit the image query to a server by using the communication circuit.” steps are well-understood, routine, conventional activity is supported under Berkheimer Option 2. For these reasons, there is no inventive concept in the claim, and thus it is ineligible.
Next, “wherein the one or more computer programs further include computer-executable instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors individually or collectively, cause the electronic device to classify objects assigned classes in an image obtained from the camera by using a segmentation model using an artificial neural network.” of dependent claim 2 is abstract because the claim encompasses mentally a person classify objects assigned classes in an image obtained from the camera. The segmentation model using an artificial neural network is mere generic computer components applying the abstract idea. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, claim 2 is directed to an abstract idea.
Next, “wherein the one or more computer programs further include computer-executable instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors individually or collectively, cause the electronic device to determine an object, having a same upper class as the primary object, as a secondary object from among other objects in the image.” of dependent claim 3 is abstract because the claim encompasses mentally a person determine an object, having a same upper class as the primary object, as a secondary object from among other objects in the image. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, claim 3 is directed to an abstract idea.
The limitation “further comprising: an eye tracking camera, wherein the one or more computer programs further include computer- executable instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors individually or collectively, cause the electronic device to: track a user's gaze by using the eye tracking camera, and determine the primary object, based on the tracked user's gaze.” of dependent claim 4 is abstract because the claim encompasses insignificant extra-solution activity and amounts to mere data gathering (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). The claim does not recite additional limitations to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the claims do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is insignificant extra-solution because 2106.05(d) court decision OIP Techs court states retrieving data is extra solution activity. Thus, claim 4 is not patent eligible under 35 USC 101.
The limitation “wherein at least one of the one or more processors further includes a positioning circuit configured to measure information related to a position of the electronic device, and wherein the one or more computer programs further include computer- executable instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors individually or collectively, cause the electronic device to: create a space map, based on the information measured by the positioning circuit, identify an actual position of the electronic device by comparing the space map with an actual map, determine an actual position of the primary object, based on the actual position of the electronic device, and generate the image query, based further on information related to the actual position of the primary object.” of dependent claim 5 is abstract because the claim encompasses insignificant extra-solution activity and amounts to mere data gathering (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). The claim does not recite additional limitations to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the claims do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is insignificant extra-solution because 2106.05(d) court decision OIP Techs court states retrieving data is extra solution activity. Thus, claim 5 is not patent eligible under 35 USC 101.
Next, “wherein the one or more computer programs further include computer-executable instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors individually or collectively, cause the electronic device to determine a degree of association of the secondary object, based on a pre-specified similarity between a lower class of the primary object and a lower class of the secondary object.” of dependent claim 6 is abstract because the claim encompasses mentally a person determine a degree of association of the secondary object, based on a pre-specified similarity between a lower class of the primary object and a lower class of the secondary object. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, claim 6 is directed to an abstract idea.
Next, “wherein the one or more computer programs further include computer-executable instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors individually or collectively, cause the electronic device to generate an image query, based further on information about a partial area of the primary object, in response to the partial area of the primary object not being recognized.” of dependent claim 7 is abstract because the claim encompasses mentally a person generating an image query, based further on information about a partial area of the primary object, in response to the partial area of the primary object not being recognized. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, claim 7 is directed to an abstract idea.
The limitation “wherein the one or more computer programs further include computer- executable instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors individually or collectively, cause the electronic device to obtain information related to the primary object from the server, and wherein the information related to the primary object is a search result of the server, based on at least one of the primary object, the secondary object, information about a partial area of the primary object, a degree of association between the primary object and the secondary object, and class information.” of dependent claim 8 is abstract because the claim encompasses insignificant extra-solution activity and amounts to mere data gathering (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). The claim does not recite additional limitations to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the claims do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is insignificant extra-solution because 2106.05(d) court decision OIP Techs court states retrieving data is extra solution activity. Thus, claim 8 is not patent eligible under 35 USC 101.
Next, “wherein the memory is configured to store information about the objects, and wherein the one or more computer programs further include computer- executable instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors individually or collectively, cause the electronic device to: display information related to the primary object and information about comparison between the primary object and a similar object stored in the memory on the display.” of dependent claim 9 is abstract because the claim amounts to an insignificant application of displaying data (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, claim 9 is directed to an abstract idea.
Claims 10-18 are ineligible:
As to step one, claim 10 recites a series of steps and, therefore, is a process which is a statutory category.
As to step 2A-prong one, claim 10 recites an operation method performed by an electronic device, the method comprising:
determining a primary object to be searched for from among the objects in the image;
determining an object associated with the primary object as a secondary object from among other objects in the image;
generating an image query comprising a portion of the image comprising at least one of the primary object or the secondary object;
The limitations, as drafted, are a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations in the mind but for the recitation of the generic computer components. The “a camera”, “a server”, and “an electronic device” amounts to mere generic computer components. That is other than reciting “a camera”, “a server”, and “an electronic device” nothing in the claim element precludes the steps from practically being performed in the mind. Thus, claim 10 is not patentable eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
For example, but for the device, “determining a primary object to be searched for from among the objects in the image” encompasses mentally a person determining a primary object to be searched for from among the objects in the image.
Next, but for the device, “determining an object associated with the primary object as a secondary object from among other objects in the image” encompasses mentally a person determining an object associated with the primary object as a secondary object from among other objects in the image.
Furthermore, but for the device, “generating an image query comprising a portion of the image comprising at least one of the primary object or the secondary object, and comprising a request for information related to the primary object” encompasses mentally a person generating an image query comprising a portion of the image comprising at least one of the primary object or the secondary object, and comprising a request for information related to the primary object. The mere nominal recitation of a system do not take the claim limitations out of the mental processes grouping. If claim limitation(s), under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation(s) in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
As to Step 2A-prong two, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Claim 10 recites
extracting, from an image obtained from a camera, a portion of an image comprising objects;
transmitting the image query to a server.
Here, “extracting, from an image obtained from the camera, a portion of the image comprising objects,” encompasses insignificant extra-solution activity and amounts to mere data gathering (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Further, “transmitting the image query to a server by using the communication circuit.” encompasses insignificant extra-solution activity and amounts to mere data gathering (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, the claim is directed to an abstract idea. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
As to step 2B, the claim as a whole does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above, claim 10 additional limitation amounts to no more than mere extra solution activity and generic computer components do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the generic computer components are implementing the limitations in a generic manner. Thus, even when viewed as a whole, nothing in the claim adds significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. Mere evaluating an image and search for the object in the image cannot provide an inventive concept. Thus, claim 10 is not patentable eligible under 35 USC 101.
Under the 2019 PEG, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B. Here, the “extracting, from an image obtained from the camera, a portion of the image comprising objects,” and “transmitting the image query to a server by using the communication circuit.” steps are considered to be extra-solution activity in Step 2A, and thus it is re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if it is more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The specification does not provide any indication that the limitations are anything other than extra solution activity.
Here, “extracting, from an image obtained from the camera, a portion of the image comprising objects,” is merely data gathering. OIP Techs court decision cited in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) indicate that mere retrieving data is a well-understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here).
Here, “transmitting the image query to a server by using the communication circuit.” is merely data gathering. OIP Techs court decision cited in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) indicate that mere retrieving data is a well-understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here).
Accordingly, a conclusion that the “extracting, from an image obtained from the camera, a portion of the image comprising objects,” and “transmitting the image query to a server by using the communication circuit.” steps are well-understood, routine, conventional activity is supported under Berkheimer Option 2. For these reasons, there is no inventive concept in the claim, and thus it is ineligible.
Next, “classifying objects assigned classes in an image obtained from the camera by using a segmentation model using an artificial neural network.” of dependent claim 11 is abstract because the claim encompasses mentally a person classifying objects assigned classes in an image obtained from the camera. The segmentation model using an artificial neural network is mere generic computer components applying the abstract idea. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, claim 11 is directed to an abstract idea.
Next, “determining an object, having a same upper class as the primary object, as a secondary object from among other objects in the image.” of dependent claim 12 is abstract because the claim encompasses mentally a person determining an object, having a same upper class as the primary object, as a secondary object from among other objects in the image. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, claim 12 is directed to an abstract idea.
The limitation “tracking a user's gaze by using an eye tracking camera; and determining the primary object, based on the tracked user's gaze.” of dependent claim 13 is abstract because the claim encompasses insignificant extra-solution activity and amounts to mere data gathering (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). The claim does not recite additional limitations to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the claims do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is insignificant extra-solution because 2106.05(d) court decision OIP Techs court states retrieving data is extra solution activity. Thus, claim 13 is not patent eligible under 35 USC 101.
The limitation “performed by an electronic device of creating a space map, based on information related to a position of the electronic device; identifying an actual position of the electronic device by comparing the space map with an actual map; determining an actual position of the primary object, based on the actual position of the electronic device; and generating the image query, based further on information related to the actual position of the primary object.” of dependent claim 14 is abstract because the claim encompasses insignificant extra-solution activity and amounts to mere data gathering (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). The claim does not recite additional limitations to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the claims do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is insignificant extra-solution because 2106.05(d) court decision OIP Techs court states retrieving data is extra solution activity. Thus, claim 14 is not patent eligible under 35 USC 101.
Next, “determining a degree of association of the secondary object, based on a pre- specified similarity between a lower class of the primary object and a lower class of the secondary object.” of dependent claim 15 is abstract because the claim encompasses mentally a person determining a degree of association of the secondary object, based on a pre- specified similarity between a lower class of the primary object and a lower class of the secondary object. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, claim 15 is directed to an abstract idea.
Next, “generating an image query, based further on information about a partial area of the primary object, in response to the partial area of the primary object not being recognized.” of dependent claim 16 is abstract because the claim encompasses mentally a person generating an image query, based further on information about a partial area of the primary object, in response to the partial area of the primary object not being recognized. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, claim 16 is directed to an abstract idea.
The limitation further comprising: obtaining information related to the primary object from the server, wherein the information related to the primary object is a search result of the server, based on at least one of the primary object, the secondary object, information about a partial area of the primary object, a degree of association between the primary object and the secondary object, and class information.” of dependent claim 17 is abstract because the claim encompasses insignificant extra-solution activity and amounts to mere data gathering (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). The claim does not recite additional limitations to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the claims do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is insignificant extra-solution because 2106.05(d) court decision OIP Techs court states retrieving data is extra solution activity. Thus, claim 17 is not patent eligible under 35 USC 101.
Next, “further comprising: storing information about the objects in memory;” of dependent claim 18 is abstract because the claim encompasses insignificant extra-solution activity and amounts to mere data gathering (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). In addition, “displaying information related to the primary object and information about comparison between the primary object and a similar object stored in the memory on a display of the electronic device.” of dependent claim 18 is abstract because the claim amounts to an insignificant application of displaying data (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, claim 18 is directed to an abstract idea.
Claims 19-20 are ineligible:
As to step one, claim 19 recites a series of steps and, therefore, is an non-transitory computer-readable storage media which is a statutory category.
As to step 2A-prong one, claim 19 recites one or more non-transitory computer-readable storage media storing one or more computer programs including computer-executable instructions that, when executed by one or more processors of an electronic device individually or collectively, cause the electronic device to perform operations, the operations comprising:
determining a primary object to be searched for from among the objects in the image;
determining an object associated with the primary object as a secondary object from among other objects in the image;
generating an image query comprising a portion of an image comprising at least one of the primary object or the secondary object;
The limitations, as drafted, are a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations in the mind but for the recitation of the generic computer components. The “one or more non-transitory computer-readable storage media storing one or more computer programs including computer-executable instructions that, when executed by one or more processors of an electronic device individually or collectively, cause the electronic device to perform operations, the operations comprising:” amounts to mere generic computer components. That is other than reciting “one or more non-transitory computer-readable storage media storing one or more computer programs including computer-executable instructions that, when executed by one or more processors of an electronic device individually or collectively, cause the electronic device to perform operations, the operations comprising:” nothing in the claim element precludes the steps from practically being performed in the mind. Thus, claim 10 is not patentable eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
For example, but for the device, “determining a primary object to be searched for from among the objects in the image” encompasses mentally a person determining a primary object to be searched for from among the objects in the image.
Next, but for the device, “determining an object associated with the primary object as a secondary object from among other objects in the image” encompasses mentally a person determining an object associated with the primary object as a secondary object from among other objects in the image.
Furthermore, but for the device, “generating an image query comprising a portion of the image comprising at least one of the primary object or the secondary object, and comprising a request for information related to the primary object” encompasses mentally a person generating an image query comprising a portion of the image comprising at least one of the primary object or the secondary object, and comprising a request for information related to the primary object. The mere nominal recitation of a system do not take the claim limitations out of the mental processes grouping. If claim limitation(s), under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation(s) in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
As to Step 2A-prong two, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Claim 19 recites
one or more non-transitory computer-readable storage media storing one or more computer programs including computer-executable instructions that, when executed by one or more processors of an electronic device individually or collectively, cause the electronic device to perform operations, the operations comprising:
extracting, from an image obtained from a camera, a portion of an image comprising objects;
transmitting the image query to a server.
Here, “one or more non-transitory computer-readable storage media storing one or more computer programs including computer-executable instructions that, when executed by one or more processors of an electronic device individually or collectively, cause the electronic device to perform operations, the operations comprising:” amounts to mere generic computer components to apply the abstract idea which does not amount to an inventive concept.
Here, “extracting, from an image obtained from the camera, a portion of the image comprising objects,” encompasses insignificant extra-solution activity and amounts to mere data gathering (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Further, “transmitting the image query to a server by using the communication circuit.” encompasses insignificant extra-solution activity and amounts to mere data gathering (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, the claim is directed to an abstract idea. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
As to step 2B, the claim as a whole does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above, claim 19 additional limitation amounts to no more than mere extra solution activity and generic computer components do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the generic computer components are implementing the limitations in a generic manner. Thus, even when viewed as a whole, nothing in the claim adds significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. Mere evaluating an image and search for the object in the image cannot provide an inventive concept. Thus, claim 19 is not patentable eligible under 35 USC 101.
Under the 2019 PEG, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B. Here, the “extracting, from an image obtained from the camera, a portion of the image comprising objects,” and “transmitting the image query to a server by using the communication circuit.” steps are considered to be extra-solution activity in Step 2A, and thus it is re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if it is more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The specification does not provide any indication that the limitations are anything other than extra solution activity.
Here, “extracting, from an image obtained from the camera, a portion of the image comprising objects,” is merely data gathering. OIP Techs court decision cited in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) indicate that mere retrieving data is a well-understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here).
Here, “transmitting the image query to a server by using the communication circuit.” is merely data gathering. OIP Techs court decision cited in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) indicate that mere retrieving data is a well-understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here).
Accordingly, a conclusion that the “extracting, from an image obtained from the camera, a portion of the image comprising objects,” and “transmitting the image query to a server by using the communication circuit.” steps are well-understood, routine, conventional activity is supported under Berkheimer Option 2. For these reasons, there is no inventive concept in the claim, and thus it is ineligible.
Next, “the operations further comprising: comprising classifying objects assigned classes in an image obtained from the camera by using a segmentation model using an artificial neural network.” of dependent claim 20 is abstract because the claim encompasses mentally a person classifying objects assigned classes in an image obtained from the camera. The segmentation model using an artificial neural network is mere generic computer components applying the abstract idea. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, claim 20 is directed to an abstract idea.
Claim Rejections – 35 USC § 103
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 of this title, 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 1, 10, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yun et al. U.S. Patent Publication (2023/0199102; hereinafter: Yun) in view of Cordova-Diba et al. U.S. Patent Publication (9,177,225; hereinafter: Cordova)
Claims 1, 10, and 19
As to claims 1, 10, and 19, Yun discloses an electronic device comprising:
a camera (paragraph[0045], the reference describes using a camera.);
a communication circuit (paragraph[0043], the reference describes using a system.);
memory storing one or more computer programs (paragraph[0049], the reference describes using a memory.); and
one or more processors communicatively coupled to the camera, the communication circuit, and the memory (paragraph[0064], the reference describes using a camera on a mobile terminal.),
wherein the one or more computer programs include computer-executable instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors individually or collectively, cause the electronic device to(paragraph[0064], the reference describes using a camera on a mobile terminal.):
extract, from an image obtained from the camera, a portion of the image comprising objects (paragraph[0158], the reference describes determining an object in the image that needs to be searched.),
determine a primary object to be searched for from among the objects in the image(paragraph[0158], the reference describes determining an object in the image that needs to be searched in a picture of objects.),
determine an object associated with the primary object as a secondary object from among other objects in the image (paragraph[0158], the reference describes that a cup and a cake is in the picture.),
Yun does not appear to explicitly disclose generate an image query comprising a portion of the image comprising at least one of the primary object or the secondary object, and comprising a request for information related to the primary object, and
transmit the image query to a server by using the communication circuit.
However, Cordova discloses generate an image query comprising a portion of the image comprising at least one of the primary object or the secondary object, and comprising a request for information related to the primary object (column 4, lines 18-47, the reference describes using a query image that includes an object that searches for related information.), and
transmit the image query to a server by using the communication circuit (column 3, lines 1-10, the reference describes retrieving data from a database.). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing data of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains to have modified the teachings of Yun with the teachings of Cordova to send query image to a database which would result in the claim invention. The skilled artisan would have been motivated to improve the teachings of Yun with the teachings of Cordova to efficiently provide identify objects (Cordova: column 1, lines 14-17).
Claims 2, 3, 11, 12 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yun et al. U.S. Patent Publication (2023/0199102; hereinafter: Yun) in view of Cordova-Diba et al. U.S. Patent Publication (9,177,225; hereinafter: Cordova) and further in view of Price et al. U.S. Patent Publication (2022/0237799; hereinafter: Price)
Claims 2, 11, and 20
As to claims 2, 11, and 20, the combination of Yun and Cordova discloses all the elements in claim 1, as noted above, but do not appear to explicitly disclose further disclose wherein the one or more computer programs further include computer-executable instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors individually or collectively, cause the electronic device to classify objects assigned classes in an image obtained from the camera.
However, Price discloses wherein the one or more computer programs further include computer-executable instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors individually or collectively, cause the electronic device to classify objects assigned classes in an image obtained from the camera (paragraph[0195], the reference describes classifying objects based on a segmentation neural network.). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing data of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains to have modified the teachings of Yun with the teachings of Cordova and Price to segment and classify object data which would result in the claim invention. The skilled artisan would have been motivated to improve the teachings of Yun with the teachings of Cordova and Price to efficiently automatically segment objects in a digital image (Price: paragraph[0002]).
Claims 3 and 12
As to claims 3 and 12, the combination of Yun, Cordova, and Price discloses all the elements in claim 2, as noted above, and Price further disclose wherein the one or more computer programs further include computer-executable instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors individually or collectively, cause the electronic device to determine an object, having a same upper class as the primary object, as a secondary object from among other objects in the image (paragraph[0177], the reference describes classifying objects.).
Claims 4 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yun et al. U.S. Patent Publication (2023/01999102; hereinafter: Yun) in view of Cordova-Diba et al. U.S. Patent Publication (9,177,225; hereinafter: Cordova) and further in view of Tsang et al. U.S. Patent (10,809,882; hereinafter: Tsang)
Claims 4 and 13
As to claims 4 and 13, the combination of Yun and Cordova discloses all the elements in claim 1, as noted above, but do not appear to explicitly disclose an eye tracking camera, wherein the one or more computer programs further include computer- executable instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors individually or collectively, cause the electronic device to:
track a user's gaze by using the eye tracking camera, and determine the primary object, based on the tracked user's gaze.
However, Tsang discloses an eye tracking camera, wherein the one or more computer programs further include computer- executable instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors individually or collectively, cause the electronic device to:
track a user's gaze by using the eye tracking camera, and
determine the primary object, based on the tracked user's gaze (column 6, lines 23-28, the reference describes using gaze tracking in a camera.). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing data of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains to have modified the teachings of Yun with the teachings of Cordova and Tsang to gaze track which would result in the claim invention. The skilled artisan would have been motivated to improve the teachings of Yun with the teachings of Cordova and Tsang to efficiently insert additional object identifiers in to a currently present feed (Tsang: Column 1, lines 55-58).
Claims 5 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yun et al. U.S. Patent Publication (2023/0199102; hereinafter: Yun) in view of Cordova-Diba et al. U.S. Patent Publication (9,177,225; hereinafter: Cordova) and further in view of Lukierski et al. U.S. Patent (10,796,151; hereinafter: Lukierski)
Claims 5 and 14
As to claims 5 and 14, the combination of Yun and Cordova discloses all the elements in claim 1, as noted above, Cordova further disclose generate the image query, based further on information related to the actual position of the primary object (column 54, lines 4-10, the reference describes using the object position.).
Cordova does not appear to explicitly disclose wherein at least one of the one or more processors further includes a positioning circuit configured to measure information related to a position of the electronic device, and
wherein the one or more computer programs further include computer- executable instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors individually or collectively, cause the electronic device to:
create a space map, based on the information measured by the positioning circuit,
identify an actual position of the electronic device by comparing the space map with an actual map,
determine an actual position of the primary object, based on the actual position of the electronic device, and
However, Lukierski discloses wherein at least one of the one or more processors further includes a positioning circuit configured to measure information related to a position of the electronic device (column 6, lines 18-32, the reference describes camera device tracking and mapping positions for a space map.), and
wherein the one or more computer programs further include computer- executable instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors individually or collectively, cause the electronic device to:
create a space map, based on the information measured by the positioning circuit (column 6, lines 1-35, the reference describes creating and collecting data for a space map.),
identify an actual position of the electronic device by comparing the space map with an actual map(column 6, lines 1-35, the reference describes creating and collecting data for a space map. The reference also shows this being compared to a global map (column 9, lines 27-63).),
determine an actual position of the primary object, based on the actual position of the electronic device(column 6, lines 1-35, the reference describes creating and collecting data for a space map.). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing data of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains to have modified the teachings of Yun with the teachings of Cordova and Lukierski to create space maps which would result in the claim invention. The skilled artisan would have been motivated to improve the teachings of Yun with the teachings of Cordova and Lukierski to efficiently generate an occupancy map based on a sequence of images from a monocular multidirectional camera that are captured during movement of the camera (Lukierski: column 1, lines 18-24).
Claims 6, 8, 9, 15, 17, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yun et al. U.S. Patent Publication (2023/0199102; hereinafter: Yun) in view of Cordova-Diba et al. U.S. Patent Publication (9,177,225; hereinafter: Cordova) and further in view of Evans et al. U.S. Patent Publication (2022/0101020; hereinafter: Evans)
Claims 6 and 15
As to claims 6 and 15, the combination of Yun and Cordova discloses all the elements in claim 1, as noted above, but do not appear to explicitly disclose further disclose wherein the one or more computer programs further include computer-executable instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors individually or collectively, cause the electronic device to determine a degree of association of the secondary object, based on a pre-specified similarity between a lower class of the primary object and a lower class of the secondary object..
However, Evans discloses wherein the one or more computer programs further include computer-executable instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors individually or collectively, cause the electronic device to determine a degree of association of the secondary object, based on a pre-specified similarity between a lower class of the primary object and a lower class of the secondary object (paragraph[0041]-paragraph[0042], the reference describes finding the degree of similarity between objects.). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing data of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains to have modified the teachings of Yun with the teachings of Cordova and Evans to determine similarity between objects which would result in the claim invention. The skilled artisan would have been motivated to improve the teachings of Yun with the teachings of Cordova and Evans to efficiently increase accuracy of object tracking (Evans: paragraph[0011] ).
Claims 8 and 17
As to claims 8 and 17, the combination of Yun, Cordova, and Evan discloses all the elements in claim 6, as noted above, Yun further disclose do not appear to explicitly disclose wherein the one or more computer programs further include computer- executable instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors individually or collectively, cause the electronic device to obtain information related to the primary object from the server(paragraph[0158], the reference describes determining an object in the image that needs to be searched in a picture of objects. The related data retrieved is shown in figure 4B.), and
Yun does not appear to explicitly disclose wherein the information related to the primary object is a search result of the server, based on at least one of the primary object, the secondary object, information about a partial area of the primary object, a degree of association between the primary object and the secondary object, and class information.
However, Evan further disclose wherein the information related to the primary object is a search result of the server, based on at least one of the primary object, the secondary object, information about a partial area of the primary object, a degree of association between the primary object and the secondary object, and class information (paragraph[0041]-paragraph[0042], the reference describes finding the degree of similarity between objects.).
Claims 9 and 18
As to claims 9 and 18, the combination of Yun, Cordova, and Evan discloses all the elements in claim 8, as noted above, Yun further disclose further comprising: a display, wherein the memory is configured to store information about the objects, and wherein the one or more computer programs further include computer- executable instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors individually or collectively, cause the electronic device to:
display information related to the primary object and information about comparison between the primary object and a similar object stored in the memory on the display (Figure 4B, paragraph[0183], the reference describes displaying information compared to the first and second objects.).
Claims 7 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yun et al. U.S. Patent Publication (2023/0199102; hereinafter: Yun) in view of Cordova-Diba et al. U.S. Patent Publication (9,177,225; hereinafter: Cordova) and further in view of Evans et al. U.S. Patent Publication (2022/0101020; hereinafter: Evans) and further in view of Won et al. Non-Patent Publication (“Augmented reality implementation method using wearable user equipment and wearable user equipment therefor”, 2016; hereinafter: Won)
Claims 7 and 16
As to claims 7 and 16, the combination of Yun, Cordova, and Evans discloses all the elements in claim 6, as noted above, but do not appear to explicitly disclose further disclose wherein the one or more computer programs further include computer-executable instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors individually or collectively, cause the electronic device to generate an image query, based further on information about a partial area of the primary object, in response to the partial area of the primary object not being recognized.
However, Won discloses wherein the one or more computer programs further include computer-executable instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors individually or collectively, cause the electronic device to generate an image query, based further on information about a partial area of the primary object, in response to the partial area of the primary object not being recognized (page 10 of PDF, the reference describes using different areas of the image when part of it is not usable to create an image query.). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing data of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains to have modified the teachings of Yun with the teachings of Cordova, Evans, and Won to determine a usable image part to create an image query which would result in the claim invention. The skilled artisan would have been motivated to improve the teachings of Yun with the teachings of Cordova, Evans, and Won to efficiently implement an augmented reality through a display screen based on a query search (Won: page 2 of PDF).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAWAUNE A CONYERS whose telephone number is (571)270-3552. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8:00am-4:30pm EST. EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Neveen Abel-Jalil can be reached on (571) 270-0474. 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 the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/DAWAUNE A CONYERS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2152 March 6, 2025
/DAWAUNE A CONYERS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2152 February 24, 2024