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.
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: “first acquisition unit”, “second acquisition unit”, “learning unit” and “detection unit” in claim claims 9-10.
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 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) a learning method and an inference method without requiring any machinery involvement. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because there is no machinery involvement in perfuming said method claims. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because there is no machinery involved in steps of claimed methods.
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) 1-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sato et al. (US2023/0010199).
To claim 1, Sato teach a learning apparatus comprising one or more memories storing instructions and one or more processors that execute the instructions to:
acquire a likelihood map of a specific part in an input image by using a first model for detecting the specific part (paragraphs 0059, 0093, selected foreground degree/likelihood, obviously a predicted likelihood map of tracking object);
acquire a region map representing a region of a specific part of a tracking target (tracker) in the input image by using a second model for detecting the tracking target (paragraphs 0051-0059, 0079, tracker refers to an detected object, feature extracted from foregrounds extraction model); and
perform learning of the second model based on a loss obtained based on an element product map obtained by an element product of the likelihood map and the region map and correct answer data indicating a region of a specific part of a tracking target in the input image (paragraphs 0089, 0119, learns parameters of the likelihood estimator so that a difference/loss between the prediction result and the correct data becomes smaller, in which the prediction result is represented by summing products of respective spatial maps of the foreground extraction models calculated by a likelihood estimator based on the input image and the respective foreground extraction results of the foreground extraction models).
To claim 2, Sato teach claim 1.
Sato teach wherein the one or more processors execute the instructions to obtain, as the correct answer map (paragraph 0078), a two dimensional likelihood distribution in which a result obtained by dividing a center coordinate of a region represented by the correct answer data by a size ratio between the correct answer map and the input image is an average vector, and perform learning of the second model based on a loss obtained based on the correct answer map and the element product map (obvious in paragraphs 0110-0118, despite lack of disclosure on a result obtained by dividing a center coordinate of a region represented by the correct answer data by a size ratio between the correct answer map and the input image is an average vector, it’s a well-known practice in the art, which would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate into the apparatus of Sato, in order to improve model accuracy, hence Official Notice is taken).
To claim 3, Sato teach claim 1.
Though Sato do not expressly disclose wherein the one or more processors execute the instructions to perform learning of the second model based on the loss and a loss obtained based on the region map and an average of a plurality of region maps acquired in the past, obtaining a loss based on the region map and an average of a plurality of region maps acquired in the past is a well-known practice in the art, which would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate into the apparatus of Sato, in order to improve model accuracy, hence Official Notice is taken.
To claim 4, Sato teach claim 1.
Sato teach wherein the one or more processors execute the instructions to acquire a likelihood map of the tracking target in the input image using the second model (paragraph 0059).
To claim 5, Sato teach an inference apparatus (as explained in response to claim 1 above).
To claim 6, Sato teach claim 5.
Sato teach wherein the one or more processors execute the instructions to detect the position of the specific part in the input image based on coordinates of an element having a maximum element value in the element product map (paragraph 0085).
To claim 7, Sato teach a learning method (as explained in response to claim 1 above).
To claim 8, Sato teach an inference method (as explained in response to claim 1 above).
To claim 9, Sato teach a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing a computer program for causing a computer to function (as explained in response to claim 1 above).
To claim 10, Sato teach a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing a computer program for causing a computer to function (as explained in response to claim 1 above).
Conclusion
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 December 21, 2025