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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-24 and 26-30 are pending. Claim 25 is canceled.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 1/20/26 was filed after the mailing date of the Non-Final Office Action on 9/30/25. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see p. 9, filed 3/30/26, with respect to claims 1, 7, 13, 14, and 19 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The claim objections of 9/30/25 have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see p. 10-11, filed 3/30/26, with respect to claims 1-24 and 26-30 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 U.S.C. 112(a) rejections of 9/30/25 have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see p. 11-12, filed 3/30/26, with respect to claims 1-24 and 26-30 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 U.S.C. 101 rejections of 9/30/25 have been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed 3/30/26, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues in p. 11 of the remarks that claims 1-24 and 26-30 have been amended in a manner that renders the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections moot and therefore these rejections should be withdrawn. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Independent claims 1, 7, 13, and 19 still recite the limitation “cause the generation of…one or more gradients.” As stated in the Non-Final Office Action mailed on 9/30/25, there is not a generation step previously recited in the claims. Therefore, it is unclear and indefinite how labels can be identified that cause the generation of the one or more gradients without a generation step.
Additionally, the amended claims as filed raise 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and 112(b) issues as disclosed below. Please see the updated action addressing these issues.
Claim Objections
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities: In lines 1-2, “the the last layer” should read –the last layer–. The extra “the” should be removed. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-24 and 26-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 recites “identify a subset of the one or more images, depicting the one or more objects, used to train the one or more neural networks based, at least in part, on one or more pixel values that correspond to the at least one label from the one or more labels.” After reviewing the specification, including Paras. 0058, 0072-0074, 0088-0089, 0100, and 0108-0109, the specification does not disclose the above limitation, or similar wording. Additionally, Para. 0097 of the specification states that “a registered average image 412 is a collection of one or more pixel values determined from an average of seeds of registered images 410.” The one or more pixel values therefore corresponds to the registered average image, not the at least one label from the one or more labels. The specification fails to provide a written description that shows the inventor possessed the invention as recited in claim 1. Independent claims 7, 13, and 19 recite a similar limitation as claim 1. Claims 2-6 depend on claim 1, claims 8-12, and 26-30 depend on claim 7, claims 14-18 depend on claim 13, and claims 20-24 depend on claim 19. These claims are therefore also rejected under 112(a).
Additionally, Claim 4 recites “wherein the circuitry is to use the one or more pixel values that result in one or more gradients from a last layer of the one or more neural networks.” After reviewing the specification, including Paras. 0058, 0072-0074, 0088-0089, 0100, and 0108-0109, the specification does not disclose the above limitation, or similar wording. Additionally, Para. 0097 of the specification states that “a registered average image 412 is a collection of one or more pixel values determined from an average of seeds of registered images 410.” The one or more pixel values therefore result in the registered average image. The specification fails to provide a written description that shows the inventor possessed the invention as recited in claim 4.
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.
Claims 1-24 and 26-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “during training” in line 6. It is unclear and indefinite if this is referring to the training previously recited in the claim. Claim 1 also recites the limitation "the generation" in line 8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is therefore unclear and indefinite how labels can be identified that cause the generation of the one or more gradients without a generation step. Additionally, it is unclear what “identify a subset of the one or more images, depicting the one or more objects, used to train the one or more neural networks based, at least in part, on one or more pixel values that correspond to the at least one label from the one or more labels” is saying. Therefore, the scope of the claim is indefinite.
Claims 2-3 depend on claim 1 and are therefore also rejected under 112(b).
Claim 4 recites the limitation “one or more gradients from a last layer” in lines 2-3. It is unclear and indefinite if this is the same as the one or more gradients and last layer previously recited in claim 1.
Claims 5-6 depends on claim 1 and are therefore also rejected under 112(b).
Claim 7 recites the limitation “during training” in line 6. It is unclear and indefinite if this is referring to the training previously recited in the claim. Claim 7 also recites the limitation "the generation" in line 8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is therefore unclear and indefinite how labels can be identified that cause the generation of the one or more gradients without a generation step. Additionally, it is unclear what “identify a subset of the one or more images, depicting the one or more objects, used to train the one or more neural networks based, at least in part, on one or more pixel values that correspond to the at least one label from the one or more labels” is saying. Therefore, the scope of the claim is indefinite.
Claims 8-12 depend on claim 7 and are therefore also rejected under 112(b).
Claim 13 recites the limitation “during training” in line 5. It is unclear and indefinite if this is referring to the training previously recited in the claim. Claim 13 also recites the limitation "the generation" in line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is therefore unclear and indefinite how labels can be identified that cause the generation of the one or more gradients without a generation step. Additionally, it is unclear what “identifying a subset of the one or more images, depicting the one or more objects, used to train the one or more neural networks based, at least in part, on one or more pixel values that correspond to the at least one label from the one or more labels” is saying. Therefore, the scope of the claim is indefinite.
Claim 14 recites the limitation “the one or more gradients determined” in line 2. It is unclear and indefinite if this is the same as the identified one or more gradients, as there is not a determining step previously recited in the claim.
Claims 15-17 depend on claim 14 and is therefore also rejected under 112(b).
Claim 18 depends on claim 13 and is therefore also rejected under 112(b).
Claim 19 recites the limitation “during training” in line 7. It is unclear and indefinite if this is referring to the training previously recited in the claim. Claim 19 also recites the limitation "the generation" in line 9. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is therefore unclear and indefinite how labels can be identified that cause the generation of the one or more gradients without a generation step. Additionally, it is unclear what “identify a subset of the one or more images, depicting the one or more objects, used to train the one or more neural networks based, at least in part, on one or more pixel values that correspond to the at least one label from the one or more labels” is saying. Therefore, the scope of the claim is indefinite.
Claims 20-24 depend on claim 19 and are therefore also rejected under 112(b).
Claims 26-30 depend on claim 7 and are therefore also rejected under 112(b).
Examiner’s Comments
The Office has established numerous rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, with regard to claims 1-24 and 26-30. The scope of the claims cannot be determined because of the identified issues presented above. The numerous rejections to claims 1-24 and 26-30 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph render applicant's claims as being so incomprehensible as to preclude a reasonably detailed search of the prior art by the examiner. The examiner has attempted to identify all grounds for rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph. However, the number of issues with regard to claims 1-24 and 26-30 is so numerous that the scope of the claims cannot be ascertained. The examiner suggests that the applicant carefully review the claims in order to fix any and all issues that have and have not been highlighted by this office action.
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.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Daniella M. DiGuglielmo whose telephone number is (571)272-0183. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 AM - 4:00 PM.
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, Emily Terrell can be reached at (571)270-3717. 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.
/Daniella M. DiGuglielmo/Examiner, Art Unit 2666 /Molly Wilburn/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2666
Prosecution Insights