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 .
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 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.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), which papers have been placed of record in the file.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because: Figure 1 item 100 is pointing to a blank space in the drawing, Figure 4 item 400 is pointing to a blank space in the drawing, Figure 6 item 130e is pointing to a blank space in the drawing, Figure 8 item 130b is pointing to a blank space in the drawing, Figure 9 item 160a is pointing to a blank space in the drawing, Figure 10 item 160b is pointing to a blank space in the drawing, Figure 11 item 1100 is pointing to a blank space in the drawing, Figure 12 item 1200 is pointing to a blank space in the drawing. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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.
Claim(s) 1 - 15 are directed to statutory computer-readable mediums under Step 1 of the eligibility analysis. However, the claims are further directed toward a judicial exception under Step 2A Prong One of the eligibility analysis, namely an abstract idea. Under Step 2A Prong Two of the eligibility analysis, the claim(s) does/do not include additional elements to integrate the exception into a practical application of that exception. Under Step 2B of the eligibility analysis, the claims are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because nothing in the asserted claims purports to improve the functioning of the computer itself or effect an improvement in any other technology or technical field. The claim(s) is/are directed to the abstract verifying the transformational robustness of a neural network. This is “organizing information and manipulating information through mathematical correlations, Digitech Image Techs., LLC v. Electronics for Imaging, Inc., 758 F.3d 1344, 1350, 111 USPQ2d 1717, 1721 (Fed. Cir. 2014). The patentee in Digitech claimed methods of generating first and second data by taking existing information, manipulating the data using mathematical functions, and organizing this information into a new form. The court explained that such claims were directed to an abstract idea because they described a process of organizing information through mathematical correlations, like Flook's method of calculating using a mathematical formula. 758 F.3d at 1350, 111 USPQ2d at 1721”, (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I)(A)(iv)). “A claim that recites a mathematical calculation, when the claim is given its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, will be considered as falling within the "mathematical concepts" grouping. A mathematical calculation is a mathematical operation (such as multiplication) or an act of calculating using mathematical methods to determine a variable or number, e.g., performing an arithmetic operation such as exponentiation. There is no particular word or set of words that indicates a claim recites a mathematical calculation. That is, a claim does not have to recite the word "calculating" in order to be considered a mathematical calculation. For example, a step of "determining" a variable or number using mathematical methods or "performing" a mathematical operation may also be considered mathematical calculations when the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim in light of the specification encompasses a mathematical calculation”. (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I)(C)(v. using an algorithm for determining the optimal number of visits by a business representative to a client, In re Maucorps, 609 F.2d 481, 482, 203 USPQ 812, 813 (CCPA 1979)). Furthermore, the claim(s) fail to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself, (see MPEP 2106.05(f)(i). A commonplace business method or mathematical algorithm being applied on a general purpose computer, Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. V. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 223, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1983 (2014); Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 64, 175 USPQ 673, 674 (1972); Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015)). Therefore, the claim(s) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claims 14 is directed to a computer program product. However, the claim is not limited to nontransitory embodiments, and the specification does not provide a definition limiting the meaning of this term to only nontransitory embodiments. The claim therefore can be reasonably interpreted as encompassing transitory signal embodiments, which are nonstatutory (In re Nuijten, 500 F.3d 1346, 84 USPQ2d 1495 (Fed. Cir. 2007)). If the specification includes written description support, this rejection can be overcome by including the term “nontransitory” in the claim (see USPTO Official Gazette notice 1351 OG 212.).
The claim recites, inter alia, “computer program product …” After close inspection, the Examiner respectfully notes that the disclosure, as a whole, does not specifically identify what may be included as a computer program product and what is not to be included as a computer program product.
An Examiner is obliged to give claims their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification during examination. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim drawn to a computer program product typically covers forms of non-transitory tangible media and transitory propagating signals per se in view of the ordinary and customary meaning of computer program product, particularly when the specification is silent. See MPEP 2111.01. When the broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim covers a signal, per se, the claim must be rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as covering non-statutory subject matter.
Therefore, given the silence of the disclosure and the broadest reasonable interpretation, the computer program product of the claim may include transitory propagating signals. As a result, the claim pertains to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “step of obtaining”, "step of determining” and “step of generating”, “step of estimating” in claims 1 - 15.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 – 15 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.
Claims 1 recites the limitation "the transformational robustness of a neural network" in lines 1 - 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 1 – 15 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention. The claims are indefinite because independent claim 1 does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired because in claim 1 applicant claims “the transformational robustness” in line 1 – 2 and then applicant claims “a transformational robustness” in lines 5 - 6. It is unclear if these two “transformational robustness” are the same or different. Clarification without introduction of new matter is required. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 1 – 15 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim limitation “step of obtaining”, "step of determining” and “step of generating”, “step of estimating” in claims 1 - 15 invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
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 – 15 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 pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. There is inadequate written description for the terms “step of obtaining”, "step of determining” and “step of generating”, “step of estimating” in claims 1 - 15.
Claim Objections
Claims 2 – 13 are objected to because of the following informalities: The dependent method claims should start with “The” for clarity. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 – 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) [as best understood in view of the 112 and 101 rejections above] as being anticipated by Shiqi et al. (Efficient Formal Safety Analysis of Neural Networks (09-19-2018) [please see reference attached to the office action]).
Regarding claim 1, Shiqi et al. teaches a computer-implemented method for verifying the transformational robustness of a neural network (abstract; systems that can rigorously check neural networks for violations of different safety properties such as robustness against adversarial perturbations), comprising the steps of: obtaining data representing a trained neural network, a set of algebraic constraints on the output of the network (section 3 safety properties and section 3.3 we specify the safety properties of neural network based on defining constraints on its input-output), and a range of inputs to the neural network over which the algebraic constraints are to be verified (section 3, range of inputs X), such that the data defines a transformational robustness verification problem (section 3.1, Symbolic Linear Relaxation); determining a set of complementary constraints on the pre-activation of a node in the network such that for any input in the range of inputs, at least one of the complementary constraints is satisfied (section 3.1, symbolic linear relaxation of the output of each ReLU z = Relu(z’) leverages the bounds on z’, Eqlow and Equp (Eqlow ≤ Eq∗(x) ≤ Equp) ); generating a plurality of child verification problems based on the transformational robustness verification problem and the set of complementary constraints (fig 2 and sections 3, 3.2 constant refinement); determining, for each child verification problem, whether a counter-example to the child verification problem exists (fig 2 and sections 3, 3.2 split); and based on the determination of whether counter-examples to the child verification problems exist, determining whether the neural network is transformationally robust (fig 2 and sections 3, 3.2 safe or unsafe).
Regarding claim 2, as mentioned above in the discussion of claim 1, Shiqi et al. teaches all of the limitations of the parent claim. Additionally, Shiqi et al. teaches wherein at least two constraints of the complementary constraints constrain the pre-activation of the node to be respectively less than and greater than a threshold pre-activation value at which the activation function of the node has a breakpoint (section 3.1; comparison and equation related to ReLU z).
Regarding claim 3, as mentioned above in the discussion of claim 1, Shiqi et al. teaches all of the limitations of the parent claim. Additionally, Shiqi et al. teaches wherein the neural network comprises one or more nodes which apply a Rectified Linear Unit (ReLU) activation function, and wherein the complementary constraints are constraints on the pre-activation of a ReLU node (section 3.1; ReLU z).
Regarding claim 4, as mentioned above in the discussion of claim 1, Shiqi et al. teaches all of the limitations of the parent claim. Additionally, Shiqi et al. teaches determining the set of complementary constraints on the pre-activation of a node in the network comprises: estimating, for each of a plurality of candidate node pre-activation constraints, a reduction in complexity of the transformational robustness verification problem occasioned by introducing the constraint (fig 2 and sections 3, 3.2 safe or unsafe); and selecting, based on the estimated reductions in complexity, a set of two or more complementary constraints (section 3.2 finding constants).
Regarding claim 5, as mentioned above in the discussion of claim 4, Shiqi et al. teaches all of the limitations of the parent claim. Additionally, Shiqi et al. teaches wherein estimating, for a candidate node pre-activation constraint, a reduction in complexity of the transformational robustness verification problem occasioned by introducing the constraint comprises: estimating a reduction in the estimated ranges of the pre-activations of other nodes occasioned by introducing the candidate node pre-activation constraint (fig 2 and sections 3, 3.2 safe or unsafe; section 3, range of inputs X); and estimating, based on the estimated reductions in estimated ranges of pre-activations of other nodes, an estimated reduction in complexity of the transformational robustness verification problem (section 3.2 finding constants; section 3, range of inputs X).
Regarding claim 6, as mentioned above in the discussion of claim 5, Shiqi et al. teaches all of the limitations of the parent claim. Additionally, Shiqi et al. teaches estimating, for a candidate node pre-activation constraint, a reduction in the estimated ranges of the pre-activations of other nodes occasioned by introducing the candidate node pre-activation constraint, comprises: determining, for each node in the network, a symbolic expression in terms of the input to the neural network that is a lower bound to the pre-activation of the node, and a symbolic expression in terms of the input to the neural network that is an upper bound to the pre-activation of the node (fig 2 and sections 3, 3.2 safe or unsafe); and estimating the reduction in the estimated ranges of the pre-activations of other nodes based on the lower and upper symbolic bounds (section 3.2 finding constants; section 3, range of inputs X).
Regarding claim 7, as mentioned above in the discussion of claim 6, Shiqi et al. teaches all of the limitations of the parent claim. Additionally, Shiqi et al. teaches wherein the lower and the upper symbolic bounds are both linear functions of the input to the neural network, and wherein determining the lower and upper symbolic bounds comprises performing a Symbolic Interval Propagation (Sections 3 and 3.1; propagation).
Regarding claim 8, as mentioned above in the discussion of claim 6, Shiqi et al. teaches all of the limitations of the parent claim. Additionally, Shiqi et al. teaches determining, for each child verification problem, whether a counter-example to the child verification problem exists comprises encoding the child verification problem as a set of algebraic constraints and solving for a solution to the set of algebraic constraints using a branch-and-bound algorithm (Sections 3 and 3.1; symbolic linear relaxation).
Regarding claim 9, as mentioned above in the discussion of claim 8, Shiqi et al. teaches all of the limitations of the parent claim. Additionally, Shiqi et al. teaches estimating, based on the estimated reductions in estimated ranges of pre-activations of other nodes, an estimated reduction in complexity of the transformational robustness verification problem occasioned by introducing a candidate node pre-activation constraint comprises: determining a number of nodes whose pre-activations would be constrained to be fully positive or fully negative over the entire range of inputs to the network were the candidate node pre-activation constraint to be introduced (Sections 3 and 3.1; symbolic linear relaxation also A.1 strictly nonnegative on X; false positives).
Regarding claim 10, as mentioned above in the discussion of claim 6, Shiqi et al. teaches all of the limitations of the parent claim. Additionally, Shiqi et al. teaches determining, for each child verification problem, whether a counter-example to the child verification problem exists comprises: determining, for each node in the network, a symbolic expression in terms of the input to the neural network that is a lower bound to the pre-activation of the node, and a symbolic expression in terms of the input to the neural network that is an upper bound to the pre-activation of the node (section 3.1, symbolic linear relaxation of the output of each ReLU z = Relu(z’) leverages the bounds on z’, Eqlow and Equp (Eqlow ≤ Eq∗(x) ≤ Equp) ); determining, based on the lower and upper symbolic bounds, a lower and an upper bound for each component of the output of the network (fig 2 and sections 3, 3.2 constant refinement); and determining, based on the lower and upper bounds, whether a counter-example to the child verification problem exists (fig 2 and sections 3, 3.2 safe or unsafe).
Regarding claim 11, as mentioned above in the discussion of claim 10, Shiqi et al. teaches all of the limitations of the parent claim. Additionally, Shiqi et al. teaches wherein estimating, based on the estimated reductions in estimated ranges of pre-activations of other nodes, an estimated reduction in complexity of the transformational robustness verification problem occasioned by introducing a candidate node pre-activation constraint comprises: determining an estimated improvement in the lower and upper bounds for each component of the output of the network were the candidate node pre-activation constraint to be introduced (section 3.2 finding constants; section 3, range of inputs X).
Regarding claim 12, as mentioned above in the discussion of claim 1, Shiqi et al. teaches all of the limitations of the parent claim. Additionally, Shiqi et al. teaches wherein the neural network is an image processing neural network which takes an image as input (abstract, section 3.3, image processing for autonomous driving).
Regarding claim 13, as mentioned above in the discussion of claim 1, Shiqi et al. teaches all of the limitations of the parent claim. Additionally, Shiqi et al. teaches wherein the neural network is a controller neural network for controlling a physical device (abstract, section 3.3, image processing for autonomous driving).
Regarding claim 14, as mentioned above in the discussion of claim 1, Shiqi et al. teaches all of the limitations of the parent claim. Additionally, Shiqi et al. teaches computer program product comprising computer executable instructions which, when executed by one or more processors (section 2 and 4 also abstract analysis systems and functions; also sections C-D applications), cause the one or more processors to carry out the method of claim 1 (please see discussion of claim 1 above).
Regarding claim 15, as mentioned above in the discussion of claim 1, Shiqi et al. teaches all of the limitations of the parent claim. Additionally, Shiqi et al. teaches a perception system comprising one or more processors (section 4 also abstract analysis systems) configured to carry out the method of claim 1 (please see discussion of claim 1 above).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Huang (US patent No. 20240205693) teaches a machine learning system with processing and verifying.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Usman A Khan whose telephone number is (571)270-1131. The examiner can normally be reached on M - Th 5:30 AM - 2 PM, F 5:30 AM - Noon.
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, Sinh Tran can be reached on (571)272-7564. 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.
Usman Khan
/USMAN A KHAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2637
01/18/2025