這是另一件案例的101答辯筆記，在答辯理由書中摘錄以下關於101的片段。
Claim Rejections Under
35 U.S.C. §101
In
the outstanding office action, the Examiner rejected claims 1 and 9 under 35 U.S.C. 101 allegedly stating
the present application
is directed to non-statutory subject matter, and also suggested that the
cited claims should be amended to include meaningful
limitations within the technical field. (審查委員認為本案涉及非法定專利標的，建立申請專利範圍應修正包括有意義的限制)
The applicant respectfully submits the amendments that
specifically define the xxxxxxxxx, and define xxxxxxxxx. .... In
the amended claim 9,xxxxxxxxx. Moreover, the xxxxxxxxx.
Therefore, the applicant
asserts that the present
application is not simply an abstract idea because the claimed
invention is not a “Fundamental Economic Practices” ( MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) Part
(I)), “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” ( MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) Part
(II)), “An Idea ‘Of Itself’” (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) Part (III)) or “Mathematical
Relationships / Formulas” (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) Part (IV)).
The applicant respectfully
submits that the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 101 necessitates further explanation
from the Examiner’s side regarding how the present application corresponds to a
concept that the courts have identified as an abstract idea, and further
submits that the claims, as amended, now include the meaningful limitations
with the technical field.
The currently-amended and
the newly-added claims taken as a whole that recite additional elements either
individually or in an ordered combination that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception are eligible (MPEP §
2106.05).
Further, the applicant
further includes at least one meaningful limitation in the claims, which makes
the claims eligible to be patented or deemed to be patented, and respectfully
requests withdrawal of the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejections to claims 1-17 of the present
application.
-----------------------------------
Claim Rejections Under
35 U.S.C. §101
In the Office Action, claims 1-19 were rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 101 in light of
Supreme Court decision in Alice Corporation
v. CLS Bank, and the Examiner alleged that the claimed invention is
directed to a judicial exception, i.e. an abstract idea, without significantly
more. According to the Office Action,
claims 1-19 are directed to the abstract idea xxxxxxx, and the claims as a whole do not include an inventive concept.
To the extent that the mentioned rejections are applied to the claims, the
applicant respectfully disagrees with the conclusions the Examiner has made for
the reasons as follows.
In the Office Action, many court cases regarding patent eligibility under 35
U.S.C. § 101 are cited
by the Examiner for rendering the 101 rejections, however, they are
respectfully traversed since applicant avers that not every case can apply to
the claimed invention and the determination of whether a court case applies to the
claims is made on a case-by-case basis in light of the facts in each case.
The claimed invention directed to a method for estimating stock level of a
shelf does not qualify as an abstract idea when it provides a specific solution
to estimate a stock level of a shelf but not (1) fundamental economic practices, (2) certain methods of organizing
human activity, (3) an idea of itself, or (4) mathematic relationships/formulas
according to MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) reciting examples of Concepts The Courts Have
Identified As Abstract Ideas.
The applicant further asserts that the steps such as using a camera unit that is mounted at a top of a shelf to capture a
shelf image of a multi-layer shelf at a specific angle, obtaining the shelf
image being divided into multiple sub-regions, performing a binarization
computation upon the shelf image so as to obtain a binarized image of every
sub-region, in which the
binarization computation is performed to compare a pixel gray value for each
pixel of each of the sub-regions with a gray threshold, computing a first
binarization value ratio for a first sub-region and a second binarization value
ratio for a second sub-region, obtaining a first binarization reference ratio
of the first sub-region and a second binarization reference ratio of the second
sub-region based on a shelf reference image [that is another shelf image of an
empty shelf and is captured by the camera unit], computing a first difference
so as to obtain a first stock decision parameter, computing a second difference
so as to obtain a second stock decision parameter, estimating a stock level
according to the first stock decision parameter and the second stock decision
parameter
are not “[a]dding one abstract idea … to another abstract idea” (RecogniCorp, LLC v. Nintendo Co. (Fed. Cir.
2017)) because the claimed invention uses a specific camera unit / image capture unit to capture the shelf image that
can be divided into multiple sub-regions images and to calculate the
binarization reference ratio based on the shelf reference image that is another
shelf image of an empty shelf and can also be captured by the camera unit/image capture unit.
Therefore, even though the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea,
the claimed invention does include additional elements that are sufficient to
amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Thus, the claimed invention is not simply an abstract idea because it is
not “Fundamental Economic Practices” ( MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) Part (I)), “Certain
Methods of Organizing Human Activity” ( MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) Part (II)), “An Idea
‘Of Itself’” (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) Part (III)) or “Mathematical Relationships /
Formulas” (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) Part (IV)), and the applicant submits that the
rejection of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 101 does not explain how it corresponds
to a concept that the courts have identified as an abstract idea.
Specifically, the camera used to capture the shelf image is specified as
the “camera unit (12, 22) / image capture unit (508)” that is mounted at the
top of the shelf (10) and can be optimized at a specific angle for covering the
rear of the shelf (10) according to one embodiment recited in the specification
of the above-referenced application.
[0023] The multi-layer shelf 10 is partitioned by
multiple partitions 101, 102, 103 and 104.
On the shelf, a camera unit 12 is
mounted at the top of the shelf 10 and used to capture a shelf image of the
multi-layer shelf 10 at a specific angle.
The shelf image covers multiple partitions of the shelf 10. In an exemplary example, the camera unit 12
is used to capture an image of items 16 and 18 in stock placed on the shelf
10. Preferably, the camera unit 12 can be optimized at a specific angle so that the
captured shelf image covers the rear of the shelf 10. This is because the
items 16 and 18 are generally placed from the rear of the shelf 10 to the front
of the shelf 10.
[0024] The camera unit 12 is able to operate full time, at
regular intervals, or by being triggered to take a picture under specific
conditions. For example, every time the
door of the shelf 10 is closed, the camera unit 12 could be triggered to take
one picture of the shelf 10. The shelf
image can be processed by an image processing method, and compared with a
reference shelf image for estimating the stock level of the shelf 10.
Therefore, the applicant asserts that the claimed invention recited in
both amended claims 1 and 10 is not an
abstract idea and is patent-eligible when it provides a specific solution
to estimate the stock level of shelf by a specific device, i.e. the camera that
is a meaningful limitation added into the claims and not a generic computer to perform
generic computer functions.
Furthermore, the USPTO announced a revised guidance for determining
subject matter eligibility on January 4, 2019.
This “2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance” makes two
primary changes to how patent examiners apply the step 2A of the U.S. Supreme
Court’s Alice/Mayo test, which determines whether a claim is “directed to” a
judicial exception.
-
First,
in accordance with judicial precedent and in an effort to improve certainty and
reliability, the revised guidance extracts and synthesizes key concepts
identified by the courts as abstract ideas to explain that the abstract idea
exception includes certain groupings of subject matter: mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing human activity,
and mental processes.
-
Second,
the revised guidance includes a two-prong inquiry for whether a claim is
“directed to” a judicial exception. In the first prong, examiners will evaluate
whether the claim recites a judicial exception and if so, proceed to the second
prong. In the second prong, examiners
evaluate whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the
identified judicial exception into a practical application. If a claim both
recites a judicial exception and fails to integrate that exception into a practical application, then the claim is
“directed to” a judicial exception. In such a case, further analysis pursuant
to the step 2B of the Alice/Mayo test is required.
In view of the “2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance”,
the claimed invention incorporating the additional element ‘camera unit / image
capture unit’ does not fall into the scope of abstract idea exception
identified by the courts since the claimed invention is not mathematical concepts, certain methods of
organizing human activity, or mental processes. Moreover, in view of the two-prong inquiry indicated in the revised guidance, the applicant
alleges that the claimed invention has recited additional elements that integrate the identified judicial exception
into a practical application even if the claimed invention is determined in
the Office Action as an abstract idea.
Based on the 2019 revised patent-eligibility guidance, the applicant of
the above-referenced application asserts that the claimed invention has
integrated additional elements into a practical application. For example, in paragraph 0019 of the specification
of the application, it indicates that the additional element such as the camera
unit / image capture unit is incorporated to capture a shelf image under a
light with a specific spectrum; in paragraph 0021, it indicates that the camera
unit is mounted at the top of the shelf 10 and used to capture a shelf image of
the multi-layer shelf at a specific angle; and in paragraph 0022, it indicates
that the camera unit is able to operate full time, at regular intervals, or by
being triggered to take a picture under specific conditions. Therefore, the additional elements of the
claimed invention individual and in combination integrate the exception into a practical application.
[0019] In the system for estimating the stock level of a
shelf, a camera unit is incorporated to capture a shelf image under a light
with a specific spectrum…
[0021] … On the shelf, a camera unit 12 is mounted at the
top of the shelf 10 and used to capture a shelf image of the multi-layer shelf
10 at a specific angle. The shelf image
covers multiple partitions of the shelf 10.
In an exemplary example, the camera unit 12 is used to capture an image
of items 16 and 18 in stock placed on the shelf 10. Preferably, the camera unit 12 can be
optimized at a specific angle so that the captured shelf image covers the rear
of the shelf 10. This is because the items 16 and 18 are generally placed from
the rear of the shelf 10 to the front of the shelf 10.
[0022] The camera unit 12 is able to operate full time,
at regular intervals, or by being triggered to take a picture under specific
conditions. For example, every time the
door of the shelf 10 is closed, the camera unit 12 could be triggered to take
one picture of the shelf 10. The shelf
image can be processed by an image processing method, and compared with a
reference shelf image for estimating the stock level of the shelf 10.
With respect to currently-amended claim 1, it is directed to a method for
estimating stock level of a shelf that uses a camera at a specific angle to
obtain a shelf image being divided into multiple sub-regions, performs a
binarization computation upon the shelf image, computes a first binarization
value ratio, obtains a first binarization reference ratio and a second
binarization reference ratio based on a shelf reference image that is another
shelf image of an empty shelf and captured by the camera, computes a first
difference, a second difference and estimates a stock level. Independent claim 10 has similar features
with the claim 1.
The currently-amended claims of the claimed invention are not directed to
an abstract idea, or even if the claims are allegedly determined as abstract,
the claimed invention has included additional elements that are sufficient to
amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
For the above reasons, withdrawal of the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101 is
respectfully requested.
Ron
