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
The instant application having Application No. 17827969 has a total of 6 claims pending 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 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1: Claim 1 is a process type claim. Therefore, claims 1-6 are directed to either a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter.
As per claim 1,
2A Prong 1:
“manually selecting a region from a remote sensing image as a processing unit, the selection being performed by a user through visual inspection, mouse clicking…” The user mentally or with pencil and paper selects a portion of the image to consider.
“extracting a first binary image of the selected processing unit using a flood fill algorithm to distinguish target areas from the background” The user mentally or with pencil and paper uses the flood fill algorithm to create a binary version of the image.
“extracting a second binary image of the same processing unit… “ The user mentally or with pencil and paper uses a model to create a binary version of the image.
“fusing the first and second binary images to generate an object binary image” The user mentally or with pencil and paper combines the two images.
“refining the object binary image to obtain a completed object binary image, And adding the completed image as a sample to a sample set” The user mentally or with pencil and paper refines the image as needed and add it to the set.
“training the … model using with the updated sample set…” The user uses the newly made data to improve the model.
“repeating the above operations to continuously add new samples to the sample set and iteratively improve the performance of the … model” The user mentally or with pencil and paper repeats as needed.
2A Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
Additional elements:
“human computer interaction” (mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component);
“using a deep learning model with pre-trained weights”, “Training the deep learning model with the updated sample set to update the weight parameters of the deep learning model” (Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f) – Examiner’s note: Claims denote a generic machine learning model with no additional details or limitations beyond a generic, off the shelf machine learning model.
2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Additional elements:
“human computer interaction” (mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component)
“using a deep learning model with pre-trained weights”, “Training the deep learning model with the updated sample set to update the weight parameters of the deep learning model” (Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f) – Examiner’s note: Claims denote a generic machine learning model with no additional details or limitations beyond a generic, off the shelf machine learning model.
As per claims 2-3, these steps contain additional mental steps similar to claim 1, and are rejected for similar reasons.
As per claim 4, this claim contains similar generic machine learning models and mental steps to claim 1, and is rejected for similar reasons.
As per claim 5, this claim contains similar mental steps and generic machine learning to claim 1, and is rejected for similar reasons.
As per claim 6, this claim contains similar mental seps and generic computer hardware similar to claim 1, and is rejected for similar reasons.
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 1-6 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.
As per claim 1, this claim calls for “manually selecting a region from a remote sensing image as a processing unit, the selection being performed by a user, through visual inspection, mouse clicking, or other human-computer interaction means.” However, this limitation is not supported by the specification.
The specification at no time discloses selecting being performed by visual inspection, mouse clicking, or other human-computer interaction means. The specification at no time discloses the use of a mouse for clicking, “visual inspection” or any other type of selection beyond the fact that something is selected. There is no discussion of “manually selecting a region.” At best, the specification supports an area being selected (Paragraphs 5, 16, and 41). However there is no detail beyond that the information is selected. This causes these limitations to be new matter, and therefore rejected under U.S.C. 112(a).
As per claims 2-6, these claims are rejected as being dependent on a claim rejected under U.S.C. 112(a) for new matter.
As per claim 1, this claim calls for the use of “binary images.” However, at no point does the specification describe the use of “binary images.” The only reference in the specification to “binary” is in reference to a “binary graph”, not a binary image. Therefore the use of “binary images” in the claims are new matter, and therefore rejected under U.S.C. 112(a).
As per claims 2-6, these claims are rejected as being dependent on a claim rejected under U.S.C. 112(a) for new matter.
As per claim 1, this claim calls for “extracting a first binary image of the selected processing unit using a flood fill algorithm to distinguish target areas from the background.” However, the specification does not support this limitation. First, the specification never discusses identifying the background. Finding the background of an image is never discussed anywhere in the specification, let alone using the flood fill algorithm to distinguish target areas from the background. Flood fill is discussed in paragraphs 6-7, 10, 12, 19-21 and 31. At best they describe creating binary graphs via the flood fill algorithm. There is no discussion of the background. This causes the limitation to be new matter, and therefore rejected under U.S.C. 112(a).
As per claims 2-6, these claims are rejected as being dependent on a claim rejected under U.S.C. 112(a) for new matter.
As per claim 1, this claim calls for “refining the object binary image to obtain a completed object binary image.” However, the specification does not support this limitation. As discussed above, there is no support in the specification for binary images whatsoever. There is also no support for refining anything, or completing an object. Refining is never discussed in the specification, and completing is only discussed in paragraphs 4, 6, and 36, but none of these paragraphs discuss refining or completing an object, let alone an object binary image. This causes the limitation to be new matter, and therefore rejected under U.S.C. 112(a).
As per claims 2-6, these claims are rejected as being dependent on a claim rejected under U.S.C. 112(a) for new matter.
As per claim 2, this claim discloses a limitation of “cutting out an image patch of NxM pixels centered on the selected seed point to serve as the processing unit.” The specification at no time discloses image patches of any kind, let alone cutting out an image patch. The closest paragraph to discuss these aspects is paragraphs 17 and 18, which disclose a seed point with NxM pixels being selected, but no discussion of “cutting out” or creating an “image patch” from these pixels. This causes the limitation to be new matter, and therefore rejected under U.S.C. 112(a).
As per claims 2-6, these claims are rejected as being dependent on a claim rejected under U.S.C. 112(a) for new matter.
As per claim 3, this claim calls for the use of “binary images.” However, at no point does the specification describe the use of “binary images.” The only reference in the specification to “binary” is in reference to a “binary graph”, not a binary image. Therefore the use of “binary images” in the claims are new matter, and therefore rejected under U.S.C. 112(a).
As per claim 4, this claim calls for the use of “binary images.” However, at no point does the specification describe the use of “binary images.” The only reference in the specification to “binary” is in reference to a “binary graph”, not a binary image. Therefore the use of “binary images” in the claims are new matter, and therefore rejected under U.S.C. 112(a).
As per claim 4, this claim calls for “generating the second binary image by applying a threshold value to the fused image”, however, the specification fails to support this limitation. Threshold is only discussed in paragraph 28 and this paragraph contains no discussion of generating anything, let alone a second binary image. It also does not disclose applying the threshold value to a fused image. At best, this discloses using a threshold value to transfer graph p2 to a binary graph p3. However, this is not the same as applying a threshold value to a fused image. This causes the limitation to be new matter, and therefore rejected under U.S.C. 112(a).
As per claim 5, this claim calls for the use of “binary images.” However, at no point does the specification describe the use of “binary images.” The only reference in the specification to “binary” is in reference to a “binary graph”, not a binary image. Therefore the use of “binary images” in the claims are new matter, and therefore rejected under U.S.C. 112(a).
As per claim 6, this claim calls for the use of “binary images.” However, at no point does the specification describe the use of “binary images.” The only reference in the specification to “binary” is in reference to a “binary graph”, not a binary image. Therefore the use of “binary images” in the claims are new matter, and therefore rejected under U.S.C. 112(a).
As per claim 6, this claim calls for “wherein refining the object binary image comprises performing morphological opening and closing operations on the object binary image, and refining the image through human computer interaction.” However, this limitation is not supported by the specification. The use of morphological opening and closing operations is described in the specification (paragraphs 33-36) further “refining” by human-computer interaction is not found in the specification. As discussed above, refining is not disclosed in the specification in any way. Nor is there any discussion of repeating the morphological opening/closing operations multiple times or in a different way than described in the previous refining of the limitation. This causes the limitation to be new matter, and therefore rejected under U.S.C. 112(a).
Allowable Subject Matter
As per claims 1-6, if the Applicant can show support for the various selection of regions, extraction of binary images, use of the flood fill algorithm to distinguish target areas and background, and fusing the outputs of a neural network with the binary image from the flood fill algorithm in the specification, the claims would be considered allowable over the prior art.
However, the current claims are not allowable due to rejections under U.S.C. 112(a) for new matter and 101, and therefore cannot be found allowable until these rejections are overcome.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments with respect to claims 1-6 have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 BEN M RIFKIN whose telephone number is (571)272-9768. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9 am - 5 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, Alexey Shmatov can be reached at (571) 270-3428. 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.
/BEN M RIFKIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2123