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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on June 22, 2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendment has overcome the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) to claims 8 and 25, set forth in the previous office action.
Applicant’s arguments, see the response filed June 22, 2026, with respect to the rejection of claims 1-25 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of claims 1-25 under 35 U.S.C. 103 has been withdrawn. In particular, the Examiner agrees that Hotson fails to disclose an iterative processing of the same image/frame. Rather, Hotson discloses using outputs of the neural network when processing subsequent image/frames.
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 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 nonstatutory 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 nonstatutory 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 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 www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim 1 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of copending Application No. 18/246, 483 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because, aside from being in two different statutory classes, claim 1 is anticipated by claim 1 of the reference application, as indicated below.
Current application
Reference application
Notes
A computer-implemented method for use in a vehicle for identifying a feature of the environment of the vehicle, the method comprising:
A computer device comprising a memory and a processor, the computer device configured to be fitted to a vehicle and to communicate with a camera or sensor, the processor being configured to:
Two different statutory classes. See below.
pre-processing the original image from a sensor or camera to produce an input image
pre-process an image received from the camera or sensor data from the sensor to produce an input image
Substantively equivalent
presenting the input image to a neural network
present the input image to a neural network stored in the memory of the computer device
Substantively equivalent
wherein the neural network is trained to classify a feature in an image presented to it by iteratively processing that image, the neural network having an input layer, a hidden layer and an output layer, the output layer including three outputs
wherein the neural network is trained to classify a feature in an image presented to it by iteratively processing that image, the neural network having an input layer, a hidden layer and an output layer, the output layer including three outputs
Substantively equivalent
a first feedback output for iteratively selecting pixels from the input image to input at the input layer at each iteration of the neural network
a first feedback output for iteratively selecting pixels from the input image to input at the input layer at each iteration of the neural network
Substantively equivalent
and a second feedback output for iteratively selecting a colour channel of the selected pixels to input at the input layer at each iteration
a second feedback output for iteratively selecting a color channel of the selected pixels to input at the input layer at each iteration
Substantively equivalent
and a third output for outputting an output value indicative of a classification result from the neural network; the processor further configured to obtain the output value from the neural network
Current application is more broad.
and post-processing an output value from the neural network to identify a feature of the environment of the vehicle
and post-process the output value from the neural network to identify a feature of the environment of the vehicle
Substantively equivalent
Thus, claim 1 of the reference application anticipates all of the limitations of claim 1 of the current application – other than being in two different statutory classes. Claim 1 of the current application is more broad other than being in two different statutory classes. However, an obviousness-type double patenting is appropriate between a method claim and an apparatus claim, if the apparatus claim could obviously be used to carry out the steps of the method claim. In the present circumstances, claim 1 of the reference application is an apparatus claim including similar limitations to claim 1 of the current application. Thus, the apparatus of claim 1 of the reference application could easily be used to carry out the method steps of claim 1 of the current application. Therefore a double patent rejection is appropriate.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-16 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 17-25 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
The primary reason for allowance is that the prior art fails to teach or reasonably suggest a neural network is trained to classify a feature in an image presented to it by iteratively processing that image, the neural network having an input layer, a hidden layer and an output layer, the output layer including three outputs: a first feedback output for iteratively selecting pixels from the input image to input at the input layer at each iteration of the neural network; and a second feedback output for iteratively selecting a color channel of the selected pixels to input at the input layer at each iteration; in combination with the other elements of the claim.
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.”
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN M VILLECCO whose telephone number is (571)272-7319. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs 6:00 AM-4:00 PM 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.
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.
/JOHN VILLECCO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2661
