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 .
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: In paragraph 116, delete “Equation 50”, and insert --Equation 40--.
Appropriate correction is required.
Priority
Applicant states that this application is a continuation or divisional application of the prior-filed application. A continuation or divisional application cannot include new matter. Applicant is required to delete the benefit claim or change the relationship (continuation or divisional application) to continuation-in-part because this application contains the following matter not disclosed in the prior-filed application: Subject matter in the specification at paragraphs 66, 79, 81-88, 100 and 102 and in claim 16.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 1 recites determining, for each of the plurality of images, a real error in the number of objects counted by the computer vision tool; generating, based on the plurality of real error values, a first coefficient and a second coefficient; receiving a number of objects counted by the computer vision tool for one or more second images; determining a statistically adjusted machine count for the one or more second images, where the statistically adjusted machine count is based at least in part on the first coefficient, second coefficient, and the number of objects counted by the computer vision tool for the one or more second images. These claim limitations are mathematical calculations and mathematical relationships, which fall into the mathematical concepts grouping.
The additional element in claim 1 is receiving, for each of a plurality of first images analyzed by a computer vision tool: a number of objects in the image; a number of false positives; and a number of missed detections.
The additional element recited in claim 1 is mere data gathering in conjunction with the abstract idea, which is insignificant extra-solution activity (See MPEP 2106.05(g)). Therefore, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
In addition to being insignificant extra-solution activity, the additional element in claim 1 is also well-understood, routine and conventional. The courts have recognized that retrieving or collecting data in various manners is well understood, routine and conventional (See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)). Therefore, the claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claims 2-6 depend from claim 1. Claims 2-6 recite further details of the abstract idea and do not recite any further additional elements. Therefore, claims 2-6 are rejected for the same reason.
Claim 7 recites determining, for each of the plurality of images, a real error in the number of objects counted by the computer vision tool; generating, based on the plurality of real error values, a third coefficient and a fourth coefficient; receiving a number of objects counted by the computer vision tool for one or more second images; determining a statistically adjusted random error for the one or more second images, where the statistically adjusted random error is based at least in part on the third coefficient, fourth coefficient, and the number of objects counted by the computer vision tool for the one or more second images. These claim limitations are mathematical calculations and mathematical relationships, which fall into the mathematical concepts grouping.
The additional elements in claim 7 are identical to the additional elements recited in claim 1. The additional elements in claim 7 do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and are not significantly more than the abstract idea for the same reasons discussed above with regard to claim 1.
Claims 8-15 depend from claim 7. Claims 8-15 recite further details of the abstract idea and do not recite any further additional elements. Therefore, claims 8-15 are rejected for the same reason.
Claim 16 recites determining, for each of the plurality of images, a real error in the number of objects counted by the computer vision tool; generating, based on the plurality of real error values, a third coefficient and a fourth coefficient; generating a first status metric, the first status metric based at least in part on a F1 performance average of the computer vision tool; generating a second status metric, the second status metric based at least in part on a number of labeled images processed by the computer vision tool; generating a third status metric, the third status metric based at least in part on the number of false positives generating a fourth status metric, the third status metric based at least in part on the number of missed detections generating a fifth status metric, the third status metric based at least in part on the third coefficient generating a sixth status metric, the third status metric based at least in part on the fourth coefficient determining, for each of the status metrics, whether the status metric meets or exceeds a threshold value. These claim limitations are mathematical calculations and mathematical relationships, which fall into the mathematical concepts grouping.
The additional elements in claim 16 are identical to the additional elements recited in claims 1 and 7. The additional elements in claim 16 do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and are not significantly more than the abstract idea for the same reasons discussed above.
Claims 17-20 depend from claim 16. Claims 17-20 recite further details of the abstract idea and do not recite any further additional elements. Therefore, claims 17-20 are rejected for the same reason.
Double Patenting
A rejection based on double patenting of the “same invention” type finds its support in the language of 35 U.S.C. 101 which states that “whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process... may obtain a patent therefor...” (Emphasis added). Thus, the term “same invention,” in this context, means an invention drawn to identical subject matter. See Miller v. Eagle Mfg. Co., 151 U.S. 186 (1894); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Ockert, 245 F.2d 467, 114 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1957).
A statutory type (35 U.S.C. 101) double patenting rejection can be overcome by canceling or amending the claims that are directed to the same invention so they are no longer coextensive in scope. The filing of a terminal disclaimer cannot overcome a double patenting rejection based upon 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 1-15 provisionally rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as claiming the same invention as that of claim 1-15 of copending Application No. 17/521,056 (reference application). This is a provisional statutory double patenting rejection since the claims directed to the same invention have not in fact been patented.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
CN 111626106 A to Yi et al. teaches vehicle detection with a camera.
US Patent Application Publication 2020/0043171 to Laradji et al. teaches counting objects in images.
US Patent No. 6,483,935 to Rostami et al. teaches counting parts using machine vision.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MANUEL L BARBEE whose telephone number is (571)272-2212. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9-5:30..
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, Shelby A Turner can be reached on 571-272-6334. 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.
/MANUEL L BARBEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857
Prosecution Insights