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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This is a Final Office Action, in responses to Applicant’s remarks filed 08/20/2026. It is noted, the current Patent Application was filed 04/26/2022; is a Continuation of 16906224, filed 06/19/2020, now U.S. Patent # 11356601. Claim(s) 1-20 are pending. Claim(s) 1, 11 and 18 are independent claims. Claim(s) 1, 11 and 18 was/were previously presented. Claim(s) 2-10, 12-17 and 19-20 were original.
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Information Disclosure Statement
A signed and dated copy of applicant’s IDS, which was/were filed 08/19/2026 and 08/26/2026 is/are attached to this Office Action.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); and In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the conflicting application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement.
Effective January 1, 1994, a registered attorney or agent of record may sign a terminal disclaimer. A terminal disclaimer signed by the assignee must fully comply with 37 CFR 3.73(b).
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over Claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent 11,356,601 issued 06/07/2022 to Patent Application 16/906,224 filed 06/19/2020 (hereinafter, “Patent ‘601”).
Although the conflicting claims are not identical, but they are not patentably distinct from each other because they are both exhibiting similar method/device/apparatus.... “ (Claim(s) 1, 2, 3 and 4 (combination)).... an image sensor and random access memory; wherein a unit operable to execute instructions and configured, via first data representative of attributes of an artificial neural network and second data representative of the instructions executable by the at least one processing unit, to implement matrix computations of the artificial neural network; and a controller coupled with the image sensor and the random access memory and configured to: write image data generated by the image sensor into the random access memory as an input to the artificial neural network, wherein writing the image data by the image sensor into the random access memory causes at least one processing unit to implement the matrix computations of the artificial neural network to generate an output of the artificial neural network responsive to the input; and generate, based on the output of the artificial neural network, third data representative of a description of an item or event captured in the image data...further in claim(s) 2-4, i.e.,
2. The device of claim 1, further comprising: a transceiver operable to communicate with a computer system, wherein the controller is further configured to communicate to the computer system, using the transceiver, the third data representative of the description.
3. The device of claim 1, further comprising: an integrated circuit package configured to enclose the image sensor, the random access memory, the at least one processing unit and the controller.
4. The device of claim 3, wherein the instructions are configured with matrix operands”
… in the BRI (Broadest Reasonable Interpretation); which is conceptually the same invention and/or a more specific version as US Patent ‘601 for:...an image sensor configured to generate image data of a field of view of the device; at least one processing unit configured to execute instructions having matrix operands; random access memory configured to store first data representative of weights of an artificial neural network and store second data representative of the instructions executable by the at least one processing unit to implement matrix computations of the artificial neural network using the first data representative of the weights of the artificial neural network; a transceiver configured to communicate with a computer system separate from the device; and a controller coupled with the transceiver, the sensor and the random access memory, wherein the controller is configured to write the image data into the random access memory as an input to the artificial neural network; wherein the at least one processing unit is further configured to execute the instructions represented by the second data stored in the random access memory to generate an output of the artificial neural network based at least in part on the first data and the image data stored in the random access memory; and wherein the controller is further configured to provide third data representative of a description of an item or event captured in the image data based on the output of the artificial neural network, and control the transceiver to provide the third data representative of the description to the computer system... [Claim(s) 1 and 2 (combination) of Patent ‘601]…
Thus, they are both exhibiting similar method to perform an indication of a first update to a first replica of a document from a first computing device, … first data representative of attributes of an artificial neural network and second data representative of the instructions executable by the at least one processing unit, to implement matrix computations of the artificial neural network; a controller coupled with the image sensor and the random access memory and configured to: write image data generated by the image sensor into the random access memory as an input to the artificial neural network, causing the at least one processing unit to implement the matrix computations of the artificial neural network to generate an output of the artificial neural network responsive to the input; and generate, based on the output of the artificial neural network, third data representative of a description of an item or event captured in the image data.... wherein the controller is further configured to communicate to the computer system, using the transceiver, the third data representative of the description and wherein the instructions are configured with matrix operands…
Please noted; “A terminal disclaimer” may be effective to overcome a provisional obviousness-type double patenting rejection over a pending application (37 CFR 1.321(b) and (c)). The USPTO internet Web site contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit http://www.uspto.gov/forms/. The filing date of the application will determine what form should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
The Claims are comparing as following:
Claim(s) 1-20 of current application and the Patent ‘601 are compared as following:
Current Application
Patent ‘601
Claim(s) 1-20
Claim(s) 1-20
1. A device, comprising: an image sensor; random access memory;
at least one processing unit operable to execute instructions and configured, via first data representative of attributes of an artificial neural network and second data
representative of the instructions executable by the at least one processing unit, to implement matrix computations of the artificial neural network;
a controller coupled with the image sensor and the random access memory and
configured to:
write image data generated by the image sensor into the random access memory
as an input to the artificial neural network, wherein writing the image data
by the image sensor into the random access memory causes the at least
one processing unit to implement the matrix computations of the artificial
neural network to generate an output of the artificial neural network
responsive to the input; and
generate, based on the output of the artificial neural network, third data
representative of a description of an item or event captured in the image
data.
2. The device of claim 1, further comprising: a transceiver operable to communicate with a computer system, wherein the controller is further configured to communicate to the computer system, using the transceiver, the third data representative of the description.
3. The device of claim 1, further comprising: an integrated circuit package configured to enclose the image sensor, the random access memory, the at least one processing unit and the controller.
4. The device of claim 3, wherein the instructions are configured with matrix operands.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 3 and 4 (combination)
***********************************
5. The device of claim 4, wherein the output of the artificial neural network includes an identification, classification or category of an object, person, or feature, and a location and size of the object, person, or feature; and the description is based on the identification, classification or category, and based on the location and size.
**************************************
6. The device of claim 5, wherein the output of the artificial neural network includes an identification of an event associated with the object, person, or feature; and the description includes the identification of the event.
***************************************
7. The device of claim 6, wherein the controller is further configured to generate representative images of the object, person, or feature, extracted based on the output of the artificial neural network
****************************************
8. The device of claim 7, wherein the controller is configured to provide the description together with the representative images.
***********************************
9. The device of claim 7, wherein the controller is configured to provide the representative images in response to a request to the device regarding the description.
***************************************
10. The device of claim 7, wherein the controller is configured to selectively store image data based on the output of the artificial neural network.
*************************************
Claim(s) 11-20
1. A device, comprising: an image sensor configured to generate image data of a field of view of the device; at least one processing unit configured to execute instructions having matrix operands; random access memory configured to store first data representative of weights of an artificial neural network and store second data representative of the instructions executable by the at least one processing unit to implement matrix computations of the artificial neural network using the first data representative of the weights of the artificial neural network; a transceiver configured to communicate with a computer system separate from the device; and a controller coupled with the transceiver, the sensor and the random access memory, wherein the controller is configured to write the image data into the random access memory as an input to the artificial neural network; wherein the at least one processing unit is further configured to execute the instructions represented by the second data stored in the random access memory to generate an output of the artificial neural network based at least in part on the first data and the image data stored in the random access memory; and wherein the controller is further configured to provide third data representative of a description of an item or event captured in the image data based on the output of the artificial neural network, and control the transceiver to provide the third data representative of the description to the computer system.
2. The device of claim 1, wherein the output of the artificial neural network includes an identification, classification or category of an object, person, or feature, and a location and size of the object, person, or feature; and the description is based on the identification, classification or category, and based on the location and size.
Claim(s) 1 and 2 (combination)
*************************************
2. The device of claim 1, wherein the output of the artificial neural network includes an identification, classification or category of an object, person, or feature, and a location and size of the object, person, or feature; and the description is based on the identification, classification or category, and based on the location and size.
*****************************************
3. The device of claim 2, wherein the output of the artificial neural network includes an identification of an event associated with the object, person, or feature; and the description includes the identification of the event.
*************************************
4. The device of claim 3, wherein the controller is further configured to control the transceiver to provide the computer system with representative images of the object, person, or feature, extracted based on the output of the artificial neural network.
******************************************
5. The device of claim 4, wherein the controller is configured to cause the transceiver to communicate, to the computer system, the description together with the representative images.
***************************************
6. The device of claim 4, wherein the controller is configured to cause the transceiver to communicate, to the computer system, the representative images in response to a request from the computer system regarding the description.
**************************************
7. The device of claim 4, wherein the controller is configured to selectively store the image data for transmission to the computer system based on the output of the artificial neural network.
****************************************
Vs. Claim(s) 1-20
.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim(s) 1-20 would be allowable if filling the “Terminal Disclaimer” to remedy the nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Reason for Allowance
Under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claimed limitation which is consistence with the Applicant's Specification, the prior arts of recorded when taken individually or in combination do not expressly teach or render obvious the limitations recited in claim(s) 1, 11 and 18 when taken in the context of the claims as a whole, especially the concept of, … “comprising: an image sensor; random access memory; wherein the processing unit operable to execute instructions and configured, via first data representative of attributes of an artificial neural network and second data representative of the instructions executable by the at least one processing unit, to implement matrix computations of the artificial neural network; wherein the image sensor and the random access memory and configured to: write image data generated by the image sensor into the random access memory as an input to the artificial neural network, wherein writing the image data by the image sensor into the random access memory causes the at least one processing unit to implement the matrix computations of the artificial neural network to generate an output of the artificial neural network responsive to the input; and generate, based on the output of the artificial neural network, third data representative of a description of an item or event captured in the image data...” as claimed and armaments and remarks filed with the RCE 05/04/2026 and supported in the current specifications USPGPUB 20220256077 A1 in Para(s) 111-119.
In addition, neither a reference (i.e., Snowden (20200241716) in view of Hallman (11398094) uncovered that would have provided a basis of evidence for asserting a motivation, nor one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have combined them to arrive at the present invention as recited in the context of independent claim(s) 1, 11 and 18 as a whole.
Thus, claim(s) 1, 11 and 18 is/are allowed over the prior arts of record. Also, dependent claim(s) 2-10, 12-17 and 19-20, are also allowable due to its dependency of independent claim(s) 1, 11 and 1 ( assuming the “Terminal Disclaimer” will be filed in the next communication). [see the remarks filed with the RCE dated 05/04/2026]
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.”
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 08/20/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of Claims 1-20 on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over Claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent 11,356,601 issued 06/07/2022 to Patent Application 16/906,224 filed 06/19/2020 (hereinafter, “Patent ‘601”).
Applicants argue the double patenting rejection could not have been made because the claim(s) are not the same (see the remarks page 1 filed 08/20/2026).
The examiner disagrees. As discussed in the rejection above, Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over Claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent 11,356,601 issued 06/07/2022 to Patent Application 16/906,224 filed 06/19/2020 is/are proper. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, but they are not patentably distinct from each other because they are both exhibiting similar method/device/apparatus.... via [see the comparison chart above of Claim(s) 1, 2, 3 and 4 (combination) Vs. Claim(s) 1 and 2 (combination) of Patent ‘601]
Thus, they are both exhibiting similar method to perform an indication of a first update to a first replica of a document from a first computing device, … via first data representative of attributes of an artificial neural network and second data representative of the instructions executable by the at least one processing unit, to implement matrix computations of the artificial neural network; a controller coupled with the image sensor and the random access memory and configured to: write image data generated by the image sensor into the random access memory as an input to the artificial neural network, causing the at least one processing unit to implement the matrix computations of the artificial neural network to generate an output of the artificial neural network responsive to the input; and generate, based on the output of the artificial neural network, third data representative of a description of an item or event captured in the image data....
Accordingly, the nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); and In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
Please note: A terminal disclaimer may be effective to overcome a provisional obviousness-type double patenting rejection over a pending application (37 CFR 1.321(b) and (c)). The USPTO internet Web site contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit http://www.uspto.gov/forms/. The filing date of the application will determine what form should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
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 QUOC A TRAN whose telephone number is (571)272-8664. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-5pm EST.
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, Cesar Paula can be reached at 571-272-4128. 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.
/QUOC A TRAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2145
