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 .
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:
an acquisition unit in claim 1. This is interpreted to be a computer processor (see paragraph 104) and associated algorithm for example see paragraphs 44 and 45.
a selection unit in claim 1. This is interpreted to be a computer processor (see paragraph 104) and associated algorithm see for example paragraphs 46 and 47.
a training unit in claim 1. This is interpreted to be a computer processor (see paragraph 104) and associated algorithm see for example paragraphs 61-62).
a acquisition unit in claim 13. This is interpreted to be a computer processor (see paragraph 104) and associated algorithm for example see paragraphs 74.
a integration unit in claim 13. This is interpreted to be a computer processor (see paragraph 104) and associated algorithm for example see paragraphs 75-87.
a degree of similarity acquisition unit in claim 13. This is interpreted to be a computer processor (see paragraph 104) and associated algorithm for example see paragraphs 44 and 45.
a selection unit in claim 13. This is interpreted to be a computer processor (see paragraph 104) and associated algorithm see for example paragraphs 46 and 47.
a training unit in claim 13. This is interpreted to be a computer processor (see paragraph 104) and associated algorithm see for example paragraphs 61-62).
an acquisition unit in claim 17. This is interpreted to be a computer processor (see paragraph 104) and associated algorithm for example see paragraphs 44 and 45.
a selection unit in claim 17. This is interpreted to be a computer processor (see paragraph 104) and associated algorithm see for example paragraphs 46 and 47.
a training unit in claim 17. This is interpreted to be a computer processor (see paragraph 104) and associated algorithm see for example paragraphs 61-62).
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 § 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 1-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Re claim 1
The limitation of acquire a degree of similarity between a correct answer region indicating a region of an object in an image and each of a plurality of anchor boxes set in advance in an image, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, acquiring in the context of this claim encompasses a user mentally acquiring the similarity.
The limitation of select, among the plurality of anchor boxes, an anchor box for which the degree of similarity is greater than or equal to a predetermined threshold, for the correct answer region, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, selecting in the context of this claim encompasses a user mentally selecting the bounding boxes.
The limitation of perform training of for detecting the object, based on the correct answer region and the anchor box selected by the selection unit, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, training in the context of this claim encompasses mentally training to detect a object using the anchor box and the correct answer.
The limitation of if a maximum number of anchor boxes have been selected for the correct answer region, changing the maximum number of the anchor boxes for the correct answer region based on the degrees of similarity acquired for the anchor boxes selected for the correct answer region., as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, changing the maximum number in the context of this claim encompasses mentally changing the maximum number.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim recites additional element an acquisition unit, a selection unit, training unit (all interpreted to be a computer processor), and training a neural network model. The processor and neural network in the steps are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function and training of a generic neural network) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component and a generic neural network. The neural network does little more that limit the invention to the field of artificial intelligence. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into
a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly
more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a processor and a neural network amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component and training a generic neural network. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component combined with training a generic neural network cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Re claim 2 The limitation of if a maximum number of anchor boxes have been selected for the correct answer region, the selection changes the maximum number of the anchor boxes for the correct answer region based on the degrees of similarity acquired by the acquisition for the anchor boxes selected for the correct answer region and the degree of similarity acquired by the acquisition for an anchor box that has not yet been selected for the correct answer region, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, changes in the context of this claim encompasses a user mentally changing this number.
The analysis with respect to integration into an abstract idea and significantly more with respect to this claim is not significantly change from the claim from which it depends.
Re claim 3 The limitation of wherein if a maximum number of anchor boxes have been selected for the correct answer region, the selection selects, for the correct answer region, among the anchor boxes that have not yet been selected for the correct answer region, an anchor box with a degree of similarity whose difference from the smallest degree of similarity among the degrees of similarity of the anchor boxes selected for the correct answer region is less than or equal to a specified value, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, “selecting” in the context of this claim encompasses a user mentally performing the selection.
The analysis with respect to integration into an abstract idea and significantly more with respect to this claim is not significantly change from the claim from which it depends.
Re claim 4 The limitation of wherein the selection obtains a total sum of degrees of similarity for each combination of anchor boxes selected for a group of correct answer regions in an image, and determines a combination of anchor boxes for which the total sum is the largest, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, obtaining and determining in the context of this claim encompasses mentally obtaining the degrees of similarity and mentally determining the combination.
The analysis with respect to integration into an abstract idea and significantly more with respect to this claim is not significantly change from the claim from which it depends.
Re claim 5 The limitation of wherein the anchor box selected for the correct answer region by the selection unit is converted into the correct answer region, and such that an anchor box that has not been selected for the correct answer region by the selection unit becomes a background region, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, converting in the context of this claim encompasses the user mentally converting the selected bod into a correct answer region.
The analysis with respect to integration into an abstract idea and significantly more with respect to this claim is not significantly change from the claim from which it depends.
Re claim 6 The limitation of obtains an IoU (Intersection over Union) of the correct answer region and each of the plurality of anchor boxes as the degree of similarity, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, obtains in the context of this claim encompasses mentally determining the intersection over union.
The analysis with respect to integration into an abstract idea and significantly more with respect to this claim is not significantly change from the claim from which it depends.
Re claim 7 The limitation of obtains a GIoU (Generalized Intersection over Union) of the correct answer region and each of the plurality of anchor boxes as the degree of similarity, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, obtains in the context of this claim encompasses mentally determining the intersection over union.
The analysis with respect to integration into an abstract idea and significantly more with respect to this claim is not significantly change from the claim from which it depends.
Re claim 8 The limitation of changes the maximum number of the anchor boxes based on the size of the object in the image, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, changes in the context of this claim encompasses mentally changing the maximum number.
The analysis with respect to integration into an abstract idea and significantly with respect to this claim is not significantly change from the claim from which it depends.
Re claim 9 The limitation of changes the maximum number of the anchor boxes based on the size of the object in the image and a predetermined reference value determined such that the smaller the size of the object in the image is, the larger the maximum number of the anchor boxes is, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, changes in the context of this claim encompasses mentally changing the number.
The analysis with respect to integration into an abstract idea and significantly more with respect to this claim is not significantly change from the claim from which it depends.
Re claim 10 The limitation of acquires a second degree of similarity between the correct answer region and each of the plurality of anchor boxes, and if the difference between the degree of similarity acquired by the acquisition unit for the anchor box selected for the correct answer region and the degree of similarity acquired by the acquisition unit for the anchor box that has not yet been selected for the correct answer region is less than or equal to a specified value, the selection selects the anchor box based on the second degree of similarity, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, acquiring and selecting in the context of this claim encompasses mentally determining similarity and mentally selecting an anchor box.
The analysis with respect to integration into an abstract idea and significantly more with respect to this claim is not significantly change from the claim from which it depends.
Re claim 11 The limitation of the second degree of similarity is a degree of similarity obtained based on at least one of a center distance between the correct answer region and the anchor box and a difference in size between the correct answer region and the anchor box, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, obtaining in the context of this claim encompasses mentally obtaining the similarity.
The analysis with respect to integration into an abstract idea and significantly more with respect to this claim is not significantly change from the claim from which it depends.
Re claim 12 The limitation of wherein the second degree of similarity is the sum of a distance between a center of the correct answer region and a center of the anchor box and a difference in size between the correct answer region and the anchor box, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, obtaining in the context of this claim encompasses mentally obtaining the similarity.
The analysis with respect to integration into an abstract idea and significantly more with respect to this claim is not significantly change from the claim from which it depends.
Re claim 13
The limitation of acquire a plurality of detection frames for an object and degrees of reliability of the detection frames, the detection frames and degrees of reliability being output from a neural network model trained by a training device due to an image including the object being input to the neural network model, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, acquiring in the context of this claim encompasses a user mentally acquiring the detection frame.
The limitation of integrate a first detection frame with the highest degree of reliability in the plurality of detection frames and second detection frames that are fewer in number than the maximum number and do not include the first detection frame, in the plurality of detection frames, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, “integrate” in the context of this claim encompasses a user mentally integrating the detection frames.
The limitation of acquire a degree of similarity between a correct answer region indicating a region of an object in an image and each of a plurality of anchor boxes set in advance in an image, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, acquiring in the context of this claim encompasses a user mentally acquiring the similarity.
The limitation of select, among the plurality of anchor boxes, an anchor box for which the degree of similarity is greater than or equal to a predetermined threshold, for the correct answer region, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, selecting in the context of this claim encompasses a user mentally selecting the bounding boxes.
The limitation of perform training of for detecting the object, based on the correct answer region and the anchor box selected by the selection unit, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, training in the context of this claim encompasses mentally training to detect an object using the anchor box and the correct answer.
The limitation of if a maximum number of anchor boxes have been selected for the correct answer region, changing the maximum number of the anchor boxes for the correct answer region based on the degrees of similarity acquired for the anchor boxes selected for the correct answer region., as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, changing the maximum number in the context of this claim encompasses mentally changing the maximum number.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim recites additional element an acquisition unit, an integration unit, a degree of similarity acquisition unit a selection unit, training unit (all interpreted to be a computer processor), and training a neural network model. The processor and neural network in the steps are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function and training of a generic neural network) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component and a generic neural network. The neural network does little more that limit the invention to the field of artificial intelligence. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly
more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a processor and a neural network amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component and training a generic neural network. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component combined with training a generic neural network cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Re claim 14 The limitation of integrates a second detection frame for which the degree of similarity to the first detection frame is greater than or equal to a first similarity degree threshold, into the first detection frame, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, integrates in the context of this claim encompasses mentally integrating the detection frames.
Re claim 15 The limitation of wherein if the number of detection frames integrated into the first detection frame is less than the maximum number, the integration integrates, into the first detection frame, a second detection frame for which the degree of similarity to the first detection frame is smaller than the first similarity degree threshold and greater than or equal to a second similarity degree threshold, among the detection frames for which the degree of similarity to the first detection frame is less than the first similarity degree threshold, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, integrates in the context of this claim encompasses mentally performing the integration.
Re claim 16
The limitation of acquiring a degree of similarity between a correct answer region indicating a region of an object in an image and each of a plurality of anchor boxes set in advance in an image, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, acquiring in the context of this claim encompasses a user mentally acquiring the similarity.
The limitation of selecting, among the plurality of anchor boxes, an anchor box for which the degree of similarity is greater than or equal to a predetermined threshold, for the correct answer region, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, selecting in the context of this claim encompasses a user mentally selecting the bounding boxes.
The limitation of performing training of for detecting the object, based on the correct answer region and the anchor box selected in the selection, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, training in the context of this claim encompasses mentally training to detect an object using the anchor box and the correct answer.
The limitation of wherein in the selection, if a maximum number of the anchor boxes have been selected for the correct answer region, the maximum number of the anchor boxes for the correct answer region is changed based on the degrees of similarity acquired in the acquisition for the anchor boxes selected for the correct answer region, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, changing the maximum number in the context of this claim encompasses mentally changing the maximum number.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim recites an additional element training a neural network model. The neural network in the steps are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e. training of a generic neural network) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic neural network. The neural network does little more that limit the invention to the field of artificial intelligence. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly
more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a neural network amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component and training a generic neural network. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component combined with training a generic neural network cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Re claim 17
The limitation of acquiring a plurality of detection frames for an object and degrees of reliability of the detection frames, the detection frames and the degrees of reliability being output from a neural network model trained by a training device due to an image including the object being input to the neural network model, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, acquiring in the context of this claim encompasses a user mentally acquiring the detection frame.
The limitation of integrate a first detection frame with the highest degree of reliability in the plurality of detection frames and second detection frames that are fewer in number than the maximum number and do not include the first detection frame, in the plurality of detection frames, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, “integrate” in the context of this claim encompasses a user mentally integrating the detection frames.
The limitation of acquire a degree of similarity between a correct answer region indicating a region of an object in an image and each of a plurality of anchor boxes set in advance in an image, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, acquiring in the context of this claim encompasses a user mentally acquiring the similarity.
The limitation of select, among the plurality of anchor boxes, an anchor box for which the degree of similarity is greater than or equal to a predetermined threshold, for the correct answer region, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, selecting in the context of this claim encompasses a user mentally selecting the bounding boxes.
The limitation of perform training of for detecting the object, based on the correct answer region and the anchor box selected by the selection unit, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, training in the context of this claim encompasses mentally training to detect an object using the anchor box and the correct answer.
The limitation of if a maximum number of anchor boxes have been selected for the correct answer region, changing the maximum number of the anchor boxes for the correct answer region based on the degrees of similarity acquired for the anchor boxes selected for the correct answer region., as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, changing the maximum number in the context of this claim encompasses mentally changing the maximum number.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim recites additional element an acquisition unit, a selection unit, training unit (all interpreted to be a computer processor, and training a neural network model). The processor and neural network in the steps are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function and training of a generic neural network) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component and a generic neural network. The neural network does little more that limit the invention to the field of artificial intelligence. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly
more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a processor and a neural network amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component and training a generic neural network. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component combined with training a generic neural network cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Re claim 18
The limitation of acquire a degree of similarity between a correct answer region indicating a region of an object in an image and each of a plurality of anchor boxes set in advance in an image, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, acquiring in the context of this claim encompasses a user mentally acquiring the similarity.
The limitation of select, among the plurality of anchor boxes, an anchor box for which the degree of similarity is greater than or equal to a predetermined threshold, for the correct answer region, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, selecting in the context of this claim encompasses a user mentally selecting the bounding boxes.
The limitation of perform training of for detecting the object, based on the correct answer region and the anchor box selected by the selection unit, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, training in the context of this claim encompasses mentally training to detect a object using the anchor box and the correct answer.
The limitation of if a maximum number of anchor boxes have been selected for the correct answer region, changing the maximum number of the anchor boxes for the correct answer region based on the degrees of similarity acquired for the anchor boxes selected for the correct answer region., as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, changing the maximum number in the context of this claim encompasses mentally changing the maximum number.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim recites additional element a computer readable storage medium, and training a neural network model. The medium and neural network in the steps are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function and training of a generic neural network) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer readable storage and a generic neural network. The neural network does little more that limit the invention to the field of artificial intelligence. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly
more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a processor and a neural network amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component and training a generic neural network. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component combined with training a generic neural network cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Re claim 19
The limitation of acquire a plurality of detection frames for an object and degrees of reliability of the detection frames, the detection frames and degrees of reliability being output from a neural network model trained by a training device due to an image including the object being input to the neural network model, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, acquiring in the context of this claim encompasses a user mentally acquiring the detection frame.
The limitation of integrate a first detection frame with the highest degree of reliability in the plurality of detection frames and second detection frames that are fewer in number than the maximum number and do not include the first detection frame, in the plurality of detection frames, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, “integrate” in the context of this claim encompasses a user mentally integrating the detection frames.
The limitation of acquire a degree of similarity between a correct answer region indicating a region of an object in an image and each of a plurality of anchor boxes set in advance in an image, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, acquiring in the context of this claim encompasses a user mentally acquiring the similarity.
The limitation of select, among the plurality of anchor boxes, an anchor box for which the degree of similarity is greater than or equal to a predetermined threshold, for the correct answer region, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, selecting in the context of this claim encompasses a user mentally selecting the bounding boxes.
The limitation of perform training of for detecting the object, based on the correct answer region and the anchor box selected by the selection unit, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, training in the context of this claim encompasses mentally training to detect an object using the anchor box and the correct answer.
The limitation of if a maximum number of anchor boxes have been selected for the correct answer region, changing the maximum number of the anchor boxes for the correct answer region based on the degrees of similarity acquired for the anchor boxes selected for the correct answer region., as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, changing the maximum number in the context of this claim encompasses mentally changing the maximum number.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim recites additional elements a computer readable medium, and training a neural network model. The medium and neural network in the steps are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function and training of a generic neural network) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component and a generic neural network. The neural network does little more that limit the invention to the field of artificial intelligence. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly
more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a computer readable medium and a neural network amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component and training a generic neural network. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component combined with training a generic neural network cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
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 1-19 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.
Re claim 1 at line at line 5 and 6 recites “select, among the plurality of anchor boxes, an anchor box…” at line 11 recites “a maximum number of anchor boxes have been selected…” and at line 14 recites “the anchor boxes selected…”. These elements are confusing first the claim appears to refer to selecting a single anchor box than appears to refer to multiple anchor boxes which have been selected. This language should be corrected for consistency, the examiner believes that for the claim to make sense multiple anchor boxes need to be selected.
Claims 2-12 depend from claim 1 and retain similar issues
Re claim 10 at line 4 recites “the anchor box selected for the correct answer region” and at line 7 “the selection unit selects the anchor box”. This language is confusing because as discussed in Claim 1 it is not clear if there is one anchor box selected or multiple or which selected anchor box is referred back to.
Claims 11 and 12 depend from claim 10 and retain similar issues
Re claim 11 claim 11 recites “the anchor box” multiple times. There are a plurality of anchor boxes claimed and its unclear which is being referred to.
Re claim 12 claim 12 recites “the anchor box” multiple times. There are a plurality of anchor boxes claimed and it’s unclear which is being referred to.
Re claim 13 at line 15 recites “select, among the plurality of anchor boxes, an anchor box…” at line 21 recites “a maximum number of anchor boxes have been selected…” and at line 24 recites “the anchor boxes selected…”. These elements are confusing first the claim appears to refer to selecting a single anchor box than appears to refer to multiple anchor boxes which have been selected. This language should be corrected for consistency, the examiner believes that for the claim to make sense multiple anchor boxes need to be selected.
Furthermore the claim recites the language “the maximum number” at line 9 followed by “a maximum number” at line 21 and “the maximum number” at line 22. This is unclear because it is unclear if these are the same number and the first instance should read “a maximum number” not the second.
Re claim 14 and 15 these claims depend from claim 13 and retain the same issue.
Re claim 16 at line 6 recites “selecting, among the plurality of anchor boxes, an anchor box…” at line 11 recites “a maximum number of anchor boxes have been selected…” and at line 14 recites “the anchor boxes selected…”. These elements are confusing first the claim appears to refer to selecting a single anchor box than appears to refer to multiple anchor boxes which have been selected. This language should be corrected for consistency, the examiner believes that for the claim to make sense multiple anchor boxes need to be selected.
Re claim 17 at line 15 recites “select, among the plurality of anchor boxes, an anchor box…” at line 21 recites “a maximum number of anchor boxes have been selected…” and at line 24 recites “the anchor boxes selected…”. These elements are confusing first the claim appears to refer to selecting a single anchor box than appears to refer to multiple anchor boxes which have been selected. This language should be corrected for consistency, the examiner believes that for the claim to make sense multiple anchor boxes need to be selected.
Furthermore the claim recites the language “the maximum number” at line 9 followed by “a maximum number” at line 21 and “the maximum number” at line 22. This is unclear because it is unclear if these are the same number and the first instance should read “a maximum number” not the second.
Re claim 18 at line 6 recites “selecting, among the plurality of anchor boxes, an anchor box…” at line 12 recites “a maximum number of anchor boxes have been selected…” and at line 15 recites “the anchor boxes selected…”. These elements are confusing first the claim appears to refer to selecting a single anchor box than appears to refer to multiple anchor boxes which have been selected. This language should be corrected for consistency, the examiner believes that for the claim to make sense multiple anchor boxes need to be selected.
Re claim 19 at line 16 recites “select, among the plurality of anchor boxes, an anchor box…” at line 22 recites “a maximum number of anchor boxes have been selected…” and at line 25 recites “the anchor boxes selected…”. These elements are confusing first the claim appears to refer to selecting a single anchor box than appears to refer to multiple anchor boxes which have been selected. This language should be corrected for consistency, the examiner believes that for the claim to make sense multiple anchor boxes need to be selected.
Furthermore, the claim recites the language “the maximum number” at line 9 followed by “a maximum number” at line 21 and “the maximum number” at line 22. This is unclear because it is unclear if these are the same number and the first instance should read “a maximum number” not the second.
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.
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Martinez US 2023/0260262.
Re claim 16 Martinez discloses A training method to be performed by a training device, the method comprising: acquiring a degree of similarity between a correct answer region indicating a region of an object in an image and each of a plurality of anchor boxes set in advance in an image (see paragraph 7 note that the intersection over union between the ground truth [correct] and each of of a plurality of other bounding boxes [anchor boxes] are determined); selecting, among the plurality of anchor boxes, an anchor box for which the degree of similarity is greater than or equal to a predetermined threshold, for the correct answer region (see paragraph 7 note that a plurality of other bounding boxes are which are above the ); and performing training of a neural network model for detecting the object, based on the correct answer region and the anchor box selected in the selection, (see paragraph 7 and 10 note that the selected anchor boxes are used to generate a consolidated box which is then used to train the image)
wherein in the selection,
if a maximum number of the anchor boxes have been selected for the correct answer region, the maximum number of the anchor boxes for the correct answer region is changed based on the degrees of similarity acquired in the acquisition for the anchor boxes selected for the correct answer region. (the examiner notes that this language is only performed “if a maximum number of the anchor boxes have been selected for the correct answer region” such that in a situation where the maximum number is not reach this step is not performed in the method. As such the Martinez reads on the claim in an instance when the maximum number is not selected.
Cited Art
The following is a listing of art considered relevant but not used in a above rejection:
Zhang US 20200175384 A1 discloses “In this example, the system performs the consolidation with auxiliary unlabeled data. The system obtains auxiliary unlabeled image data, which has a similar distribution as the target data but does not have to contain any instances of the 20 classes. Extending the learning without forgetting techniques discussed above, the system uses N.sub.1 and N.sub.2 as teacher models and N as the student model and trains the student model to mimic the behavior of teacher models on the auxiliary data. In particular, for each selected anchor boxes in an image, the first 10 logit outputs of C should be similar to the logit outputs of C.sub.1; the last 10 logit outputs of C should be similar to the logit outputs of C.sub.2, and the output of B should be similar to B.sub.1 if N.sub.1 gives higher objectness score or B.sub.2 otherwise. As such, the same or similar embodiments for IL discussed above can be applied to network consolidation.” See paragraph 82
Cohen US 20200202533 A1 discloses Upon identifying a set of scales, the digital object selection system performs an act 606 of identifying a scale (e.g., anchor box) corresponding to the ground truth segmentation. Specifically, the digital object selection system can find the closest matching anchor box to train the selection model. For example, in one or more embodiments, the digital object selection system determines the center of a bounding box B that encloses the ground truth segmentation. Next, the digital object selection system aligns the set of anchors (from the act 604) conditioned on this center. The digital object selection system then determines the similarity between B and each anchor box based on Intersection-over-Union (IoU). The anchor box with the largest IoU is considered as the scale that corresponds to that particular selection. (see paragraph 119).
Dev et al US 20230245240 A1 discloses The masked R-CNN can further generate a segmentation mask. An intersection over union (IoU) is computed for each bounding box with a ground truth bounding box. Where the IoU of a bounding box with a ground truth bounding box is greater than a threshold level the bounding box is selected as a region of interest. The masked R-CNN can then further encode a binary mask per class for each region of interest. The masked R-CNN can be used to generate a respective classification of one or more sections of the vehicle. The masked R-CNN extracts a feature map from the image and executes a regression such that bounding boxes and class labels are extracted from the feature map and the generates a mask is generated that identifies the damaged section of the vehicle. More generally, however, any appropriate machine learning model can be used to perform the classification. (See paragraph 78)
Wang et al US 20230343128 A1 discloses initializing a connection weight, a threshold and a learning rate, setting an activation function, calculating an output of a hidden layer and an output of the network, calculating a network error, and calculating a partial derivative of the network error to a connection weight of an output layer and a connection weight of the hidden layer; updating network parameters; calculating a global error of the network, determining whether the global error of the network meets a set required value, if yes, determining network convergence, and if not, returning for a next iteration; calculating an intersection over union (IOU) through a true value manually marked in step 2, selecting positive and negative sample sets for training, retaining pixels with an IOU>0.7, and discarding pixels with an IOU<0.3; and calculating similarity between an eigenvalue generated by the Attention-RPN and a label by a depth-by-depth method, and selectively retaining anchor boxes with high similarity to generate candidate regions through the similarity. (see paragraph 19)
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SEAN T MOTSINGER whose telephone number is (571)270-1237. The examiner can normally be reached 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, Chineyere Wills-Burns can be reached at (571) 272-9752. 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.
/SEAN T MOTSINGER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2673