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 filed 02/23/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding rejection on claims 1 and 13, applicant argued Sachdeva fails to teach “capturing a second image with the object from a second perspective different from the first perspective using a capturing facility associated with the training system” because there is no second image of the object captured in the prior art. Applicant then argued that Sachdeva teaches carrying/forward and/or updating annotations which makes no sense in using a determined first item of object information at all in the second image.
However, examiner respectfully disagrees. First of all, argued claim limits “second perspective” being different from “first perspective” without limiting what “perspective” is and whom performs “capturing.” In Sachdeva, “first perspective” and “second perspective” can be interpreted as different time instances (e.g., different frames of 2D or 3D video; column 26 lines 49-52, column 42 lines 58-59, source images are multiple time-sequenced frames), or interpreted as capturing at different spaces (e.g., different capturing cameras inherently occupies different spaces; column 26 lines 39-44, column 40 lines 19-26, column 42 lines 10-11, source images are captured by different devices). Second off, argued claim has no limitation on what “first item of object information” is. Despite of applicant’s argument, applicant’s statement “Sachdeva teaches carrying/forward and/or updating annotations (e.g., graphical boundaries and labels)” makes sense in teaching “generating a first item of object information based on determined object in the first image using the electronic computing facility; and determining the object in the second image based at least in part on the determined first item of object information by the electronic computing facility.” Sachdeva teaches automatic tracking of objects across various frames of a 3-D video (abstract, also equally applicable to 2-D images), Sachdeva’s teaching that tracking an identified object in a second image is based at least in part of determined information (e.g., boundary or label) generated for the object identified in a first image (prior frame of 3-D video, or image from a different camera).
Thus, rejections are proper and maintained.
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-4, 6, 8-9, 11-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sachdeva et al. (US10169678).
To claim 1, Sachdeva teach a method for generating training data for an object for training an artificial intelligence system using a training system (column 1 lines 14-18), the method comprising:
capturing a first image with the object from a first perspective; and capturing a second image with the object from a second perspective different from the first perspective using a capturing facility associated with the training system (column 45 lines 29-41, column 46 lines 9-12);
displaying the first image on a display facility of the training system (column 45 lines 29-41);
capturing input of an operator of the training system with respect to a position of the object in the displayed first image by an input facility of the training system (column 45 lines 29-41);
determining the object in the first image based at least in part on the input using an electronic computing facility of the training system (column 45 lines 29-41);
generating a first item of object information based on the determined object in the first image using the electronic computing facility (column 45 lines 29-41, column 46 lines 9-12);
determining the object in the second image based at least in part on the determined first item of object information by the electronic computing facility (column 46 lines 9-12);
generating a second item of object information based at least in part on the determined object in the second image by the electronic computing facility (column 37 lines 20-32, column 47 lines 28-35); and
generating training data for the object at least in part on the first item of object information and the second item of object information by the electronic computing facility (column 37 lines 20-32, column 44 line 63 to column 45 lines 56).
To claim 13, Sachdeva teach a training system for generating training data for an object for training an artificial intelligence system (as explained in response to claim 1 above).
To claim 2, Sachdeva teach claim 1.
Sachdeva teach wherein the first item of object information and/or the second item of object information are generated on the basis of similarities in a surrounding region of the input (column 37 lines 62-67).
To claim 3, Sachdeva teach claim 1.
Sachdeva teach wherein the first item of object information and/or the second item of object information are determined by a neural network of the electronic computing facility (column 38 lines 41-54).
To claim 4, Sachdeva teach claim 1.
Sachdeva teach wherein at least the first image and/or the second image are captured by a camera as the capturing facility (column 40 lines 19-26).
To claim 6, Sachdeva teach claim 1.
Sachdeva teach wherein a depth image with the object is captured as the first image and/or the second image (column 40 lines 19-26).
To claim 8, Sachdeva teach claim 1.
Sachdeva teach wherein the first image and the second image are captured by an automated unit having the capturing facility (column 2 line 66, column 3 line 28).
To claim 9, Sachdeva teach claim 8.
Sachdeva teach further comprising generating control commands for the automated unit by the electronic computing facility so that at least two positions are approached by the automated unit on the basis of the control commands; and wherein a respective image with the object is captured at a respective position (column 34 lines 22-35).
To claim 11, Sachdeva teach claim 1.
Sachdeva teach further comprising, before generating the training data, displaying the first item of object information and/or the second item of object information to the operator on the display facility for confirmation (column 31 lines 20-49).
To claim 12, Sachdeva teach claim 1.
Sachdeva teach further comprising, before generating the training data, capturing additional further input from the operator with respect to a further position of the object in the first image and/or the second image (column 31 lines 20-49).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 5, 7, 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sachdeva et al. (US10169678).
To claim 5, Sachdeva teach claim 1.
Sachdeva teach wherein an RYB image with the object is captured as the first image and/or as the second image (column 40 lines 19-26, wherein though RGB image is taught instead of RYB image, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to recognized that an image captured in RGB format can be digitally processed or converted to an RYB representation by design preference, which would have been an obvious modification before the effective filing date of the claimed invention by design preference on color profile, hence Official Notice is taken).
To claim 7, Sachdeva teach claim 1.
Sachdeva teach wherein: an RYB image with the object is captured as the first image and/or as the second image and a depth image with the object is captured as the first image and/or the second image; and RYB information from the RYB image and depth information from the depth image are used to determine the first item of object information and/or the second item of object information (column 40 lines 19-26, wherein though RGB image is taught instead of RYB image, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to recognized that an image captured in RGB format can be digitally processed or converted to an RYB representation by design preference, which would have been an obvious modification before the effective filing date of the claimed invention by design preference on color profile, hence Official Notice is taken).
To claim 10, Sachdeva teach claim 1.
Though Sachdeva do not expressly disclose verifying the input of the operator by a neural network, such feature is well-known in the art for verification automation, which would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate by design preference, hence Official Notice is taken.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ZHIYU LU whose telephone number is (571)272-2837. The examiner can normally be reached Weekdays: 8:30AM - 5:00PM.
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, Stephen R Koziol can be reached at (408) 918-7630. 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.
ZHIYU . LU
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2669
/ZHIYU LU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2665 March 2, 2026