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 Preliminary Amendment
The preliminary amendment filed 01/26/2024 has been entered and considered.
Claims 1 and 3-17 have been amended.
Claims 1-17 are pending.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 06/09/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 02/06/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 01/26/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 is: “controller” in claims 15-17.
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 1-17 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.
As per claim 1, the claim calls for “in which an appearance of the estimation target in the second environment is assumed based on user environment information about the second environment”, the phrase “assumed” is indefinitely and ambiguous. For the purpose of the examination, the appearance of the estimation target is to be interpreted as relating to the second environment.
Claim 2-14 are rejected as being dependent upon claim 1.
Claims 15-16 are rejected for the similar reason as of claim 1.
Claim 17 is rejected as being dependent upon claim 15.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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)(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, 3-4, 7 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Kurita et al (“Kurita” hereinafter, U.S. Publication No. 2023/0222645 A1).
As per claim 1, Kurita discloses a trainer model (figure 4, model generation apparatus 1) generating method comprising: acquiring a first model (first estimation model 5) obtained by using first image data as learning data to perform training processing for an estimation target, the first image data representing the estimation target in the first environment (paragraph [0042]: “obtains the first training data 30 including multiple acceptable-product images 31 of defect-free products obtained in the target inspection environment”); acquiring second image data representing the estimation target in a second environment in which estimation is to be performed (paragraph [0043]: “the second training data 35 including multiple defect images 371 of defects. The defect images 371 are examples of second training images”; paragraph [0116]: “The second training data 35 may be automatically generated through a computer operation or at least partially manually generated through an operation performed by an operator”); generating a second model based on the first model by using the second image data as learning data (paragraph [0118]: “the controller 11 operates as the second trainer 114 and trains the second estimation model 6 through machine learning using the obtained second training data 35”; paragraph [0119]: “the controller 11 first prepares neural networks to be the encoder 61 and the decoder 65 included in the second estimation model 6 to undergo machine learning”, which implies the second estimation model 6 is based on first estimation model structure); and outputting a trained model based on the second model (paragraph [0124]: “the trained second estimation model 6” is the claimed “trained model based on the second model”), wherein the second image data includes an image in which an appearance of the estimation target in the second environment is assumed based on user environment information about the second environment (as explained above, in paragraph [0116], Kurita teaches the product images with/without defects are obtained in an operation performed by an operator, which is the claimed “second environment”/ “user environment information”).
As per claim 3, Kurita discloses acquiring, as the user environment information, information specifying a factor responsible for noise that occurs in the second image in the second environment (paragraph [0121]: “an error between the obtained determination image and the corresponding true image 38 for each training data set 36”, and Kurita teaches the training set “may be automatically generated through a computer operation or at least partially manually generated through an operation performed by an operator”).
As per claim 4, Kurita discloses acquiring, as the user environment information, information specifying a factor causing a difference between the first image and the second image data (paragraph [0115]: Kurita teaches the factor may be whether the product is defective or defect-free, or automatically generated by a computer or manually generated by an operator).
As per claim 7, Kurita discloses acquiring, as the user environment information, information on an image-capturing parameter of image-capturing means used in recognition of the estimation target in the second environment (paragraph [0115]: Kurita teaches identifying defect in the product image with processed or unprocessed image data).
As per claim 15, see explanation in claim 1. The examiner notes the controller 11 in Kurita is the claimed “controller”.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Dancel et al (“Dancel” hereinafter, U.S. Publication No. 2021/0150309 A1).
As per claim 16, Dancel discloses As per claim 16, a user environment estimating device (abstract: a computer for “identifying patterns in first high anticipation scenarios”) comprising: a controller (figure 1, computing device 115) configured to estimate a user environment (estimating high anticipation scenarios) based on image data (figure 2) obtained by capturing prescribed object (cross walk) in the user environment (intersections), the user environment being an environment in which data on an estimation target (an object/person/pedestrian) is to be acquired, and output an estimation result of the user environment as user environment information about the user environment (figure 3, paragraphs [0027]-[0028] the estimation result may be easy/difficult).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2, 5-6, 8-14 and 17 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TOM Y LU whose telephone number is (571)272-7393. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9AM - 5PM.
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, Matthew Bella can be reached at (571) 272 - 7778. 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.
/TOM Y LU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2667