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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Double Patenting
The non-statutory 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 non-statutory 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); 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 non-statutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a non-statutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based e-Terminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An e-Terminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about e-Terminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1 are rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. US 1,763,155 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because limitations of because limitations of instant application claim 1 are similar to limitations of US Patent 1,763,155 B2.
Instant application: US 2023/0394311 A1
Patent: US 11,763,155 B2
Claim 1:
Claim 1:
A system, comprising: a storage medium; and a processor comprising circuitry configured to:
A system, comprising: a first electronic device including a first processor comprising processing circuitry, the first processor configured to:
generate, from a neural network for processing a plurality of inputs corresponding to a set of color channels in instances of input image data,
B. generate, from a neural network operable for processing a first set of color channels in instances of input image data,
C. a sub-network for processing a reduced set of the plurality of inputs that includes fewer color channels than the set of color channels to be processed by the neural network;
C. a sub-network operable for processing a second set of one or more color channels in instances of input image data, the second set of one or more color channels including fewer color channels than the first set of color channels;
D. and store the sub-network in the storage medium.
D. in step C (a sub-network operable for processing a second set of one or more color channels in instances of input image data (inherently a sub-network must be stored in memory for processing)) which is similar to store the sub-network in the storage medium.
Claim 8 of the pending application is directed to a method and recited identical features as claim 11 of U.S. Patent No. US 1,763,155 B2 and is therefore rejected under a non-statutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection as claiming the same invention for the reason discussed above.
Claims 2-7 and 9-14 depend to claims 1 and 8, respectively. Thus, claim 2-7 and 9-14 are rejected under a non-statutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection as claiming the same invention for their dependency to the respective base claim.
Claim 15 of the pending application is directed to a method and recited identical features as claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. US 1,763,155 B2 and is therefore rejected under a non-statutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection as claiming the same invention for the reason discussed above.
Claims 16-20 depend to claim 15. Thus, claims 16-20 are rejected under a non-statutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection as claiming the same invention for their dependency to the respective base claim.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to QUANG N VO whose telephone number is (571)270-1121. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 7AM-4PM, 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, Mohammad K Ghayour can be reached at 571-272-3021. 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.
/QUANG N VO/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2683
Prosecution Insights