DETAILED ACTION Th is action is in response to the claims filed 09/13/2023 for Application number 18 / 466 , 797 . Claims 1-20 are currently pending. 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. Specification The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: The title of the invention "Solving Inaccuracies associated with 0bject Detection" should read "Solving Inaccuracies associated with Object Detection" . Appropriate correction is required. 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 FILLIN "Pluralize the word 'Claim' if necessary and then identify the claim(s) being rejected." 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Regarding claim 1 , Step 1 Analysis: Claim 1 is directed to a process, which falls within one of the four statutory categories. Step 2A Prong 1 Analysis: Claim 1 recites, in part, The limitations of: [ automatically ] evaluating, [ by a controller ] , an accuracy of signatures for use in the object detection can be considered to be an evaluation in the human mind when finding an erroneous signature of the signatures, [by the controller, … can be considered to be an evaluation in the human mind These limitations as drafted, are processes that, under broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind or with the aid of pen and paper which falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. Step 2A Prong 2 Analysis: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements – “automatically [evaluating] by a controller” and “the signatures were generated by an adaptable artificial intelligence (AI) system”. Thus, th ese element s in the claim are recited at a high level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Please see MPEP 2106.05(f). Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim further recites: triggering a generation of a router that routes a sensed information unit (SIU) that is associated with the erroneous signature to a current error resolving part of the adaptable Al system, the current error resolving part of the adaptable Al system is currently associated with resolving at least one other error associated with at least one other erroneous signature . This limitation is a mere data gathering step and thus is an insignificant extra-solution activity. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim as a whole is directed to an abstract idea. Step 2B Analysis: The claims do 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 elements of utilizing a n artificial intelligence system and controller to perform the steps of the claimed process amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Furthermore, the limitation of triggering a generation of a router that routes a sensed information unit (SIU) that is associated with the erroneous signature to a current error resolving part of the adaptable Al system, the current error resolving part of the adaptable Al system is currently associated with resolving at least one other error associated with at least one other erroneous signature is well-understood, routine, and conventional, as evidenced by MPEP §2106.05(d)(II)(I), “receiving or transmitting data over a network”. These limitations therefore remain insignificant extra-solution activity even upon reconsideration, and does not amount to significantly more. Even when considered in combination, these additional elements amount to mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components and insignificant extra-solution activity, which cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. Regarding claim 2 , the rejection of claim 1 is further incorporated, and further, the claim recites: s electing the current error resolving part of the adaptable Al system out of a first plurality of current error resolving parts of the adaptable AI system. This claim recites additional mental steps in addition to the judicial exception identified in the rejection of claim 1, thus recites a judicial exception. The claim does not include any additional elements that amount to an integration of the judicial exception into a practical application, nor to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim is not patent eligible. Regarding claim 3 , the rejection of claim 2 is further incorporated, and further, the claim recites: w herein the first plurality of current error resolving parts of the adaptable Al system are associated with a second plurality of signatures. This limitation amounts to more specifics of the judicial exception identified in the rejection of claim 1 above. The claim does not include any additional elements that amount to an integration of the judicial exception into a practical application, nor to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim is not patent eligible. Regarding claim 4 , the rejection of claim 3 is further incorporated, and further, the claim recites: wherein the selecting is based on similarities between the erroneous signature and the second plurality of signatures. This limitation amounts to more specifics of the judicial exception identified in the rejection of claim 1 above. The claim does not include any additional elements that amount to an integration of the judicial exception into a practical application, nor to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim is not patent eligible. Regarding claim 5 , the rejection of claim 3 is further incorporated, and further, the claim recites: wherein the erroneous signature is associated with a certain context, wherein the second plurality of signatures are associated with contexts, wherein the selecting is based on similarities between the certain context and the contexts. This limitation amounts to more specifics of the judicial exception identified in the rejection of claim 1 above. The claim does not include any additional elements that amount to an integration of the judicial exception into a practical application, nor to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim is not patent eligible. Regarding claim 6 , the rejection of claim 3 is further incorporated, and further, the claim recites: wherein the erroneous signature is associated with a certain object, wherein the second plurality of signatures are associated with multiple objects, wherein the selecting is based on similarities between the certain object and the multiple objects. This limitation amounts to more specifics of the judicial exception identified in the rejection of claim 1 above. The claim does not include any additional elements that amount to an integration of the judicial exception into a practical application, nor to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim is not patent eligible. Regarding claim 7 , the rejection of claim 3 is further incorporated, and further, the claim recites: wherein the second plurality of signatures are erroneous signatures allocated to the first plurality of current error resolving parts. This limitation amounts to more specifics of the judicial exception identified in the rejection of claim 1 above. The claim does not include any additional elements that amount to an integration of the judicial exception into a practical application, nor to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim is not patent eligible. Regarding claim 8 , the rejection of claim 1 is further incorporated, and further, the claim recites: wherein when finding the erroneous signature, selecting between ( i ) triggering a generation of a new error resolving part of the adaptable Al, and (ii) triggering a usage of the current error resolving part of the adaptable Al. This claim recites additional mental steps in addition to the judicial exception identified in the rejection of claim 1, thus recites a judicial exception. The claim does not include any additional elements that amount to an integration of the judicial exception into a practical application, nor to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim is not patent eligible. Regarding claim 9 , the rejection of claim 8 is further incorporated, and further, the claim recites: wherein the selecting is responsive to a cost function. This limitation amounts to more specifics of the judicial exception identified in the rejection of claim 1 above. The claim does not include any additional elements that amount to an integration of the judicial exception into a practical application, nor to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim is not patent eligible. Regarding claim 10 , the rejection of claim 1 is further incorporated, and further, the claim recites: wherein the current error resolving part of the adaptable Al comprises a narrow Al agent. This limitation amounts to more specifics of the judicial exception identified in the rejection of claim 1 above. The claim does not include any additional elements that amount to an integration of the judicial exception into a practical application, nor to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim is not patent eligible. Claim 1 1 recites features similar to claim 1 and is rejected for at least the same reasons therein. Claim 1 1 additionally requires analysis for “A non-transitory computer readable medium storing instructions that, when executed by at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to perform operations …” however this is an additional element which amounts to mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using a generic computer component. Please see MPEP §2106.05(f). Regarding Claim 12-20 , they recite features similar to claim s 2-10 and are rejected for at least the same reasons therein. 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 . Claims FILLIN "Pluralize \“Claim\” if necessary, insert \“is\” or \“are\” as appropriate, and insert the claim number(s) which are under rejection." 1 and 11 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting a s being unpatentable over claims FILLIN "Pluralize \“Claim\” if necessary, and insert the claim number(s) of the U.S. Patent." 1 and 11 of U.S. Patent No. FILLIN "Insert the number of the patent." 12482274 . Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because Instant Application U.S. Pat No. FILLIN "Insert the number of the patent." 12482274 Claim 1 Claim 1 A method that is computer implemented and is for solving inaccuracies associated with object detection, the method comprises: A method that is computer implemented and is for solving inaccuracies associated with object detection, the method comprises: automatically evaluating, by a controller, an accuracy of signatures for use in the object detection, the signatures were generated by an adaptable artificial intelligence (AI) system ; automatically evaluating, by a controller, an accuracy of signatures for use in the object detection, the signatures were generated by an adaptable artificial intelligence (AI) system; and when finding an erroneous signature of the signatures, by the controller, triggering a generation of a router that routes a sensed information unit (SIU) that is associated with the erroneous signature to a current error resolving part of the adaptable Al system, the current error resolving part of the adaptable Al system is currently associated with resolving at least one other error associated with at least one other erroneous signature. when finding an erroneous signature of the signatures, by the controller, triggering a generation of (a) a narrow AI agent configured to solve an error associated with the erroneous signature and (b) a router that routes a sensed information unit (SIU) associated with the erroneous signature to the narrow AI agent, wherein the erroneous signature, when used for the object detection, results in an object detection error. All limitations of claim 1 in the instant application are anticipated by claim 1 of the ‘ 274 Patent . Instant Application U.S. Pat No. FILLIN "Insert the number of the patent." 12482274 Claim 1 Claim 1 A non-transitory computer readable medium storing instructions that, when executed by at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to perform operations for solving inaccuracies associated with object detection, comprising : A non-transitory computer readable medium storing instructions that, when executed by at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to perform operations for solving inaccuracies associated with object detection, comprising: automatically evaluating, by a controller, an accuracy of signatures for use in the object detection, the signatures were generated by an adaptable artificial intelligence (Al) system ; automatically evaluating, by a controller, an accuracy of signatures for use in the object detection, the signatures were generated by an adaptable artificial intelligence (AI) system; and when finding an erroneous signature of the signatures, by the controller, triggering a generation of a router that routes a sensed information unit (SIU) that is associated with the erroneous signature to a current error resolving part of the adaptable Al system, the current error resolving part of the adaptable Al system is currently associated with resolving at least one other error associated with at least one other erroneous signature. when finding an erroneous signature of the signatures, by the controller, triggering a generation of (a) a narrow AI agent configured to solve an error associated with the erroneous signature and (b) a router that routes a sensed information unit (SIU) associated with the erroneous signature to the narrow AI agent, wherein the erroneous signature, when used for the object detection, results in an object detection error. All limitations of claim 11 in the instant application are anticipated by claim 1 1 of the ‘ 274 Patent . Allowable Subject Matter Claims 1-20 are objected to as being allowable over prior art if all outstanding rejections were withdrawn. None of the prior art, either alone or in combination, fairly discloses limitations of claims 1 and 11 in particular: … when finding an erroneous signature of the signatures, by the controller, triggering a generation of a router that routes a sensed information unit (SIU) that is associated with the erroneous signature to a current error resolving part of the adaptable Al system, the current error resolving part of the adaptable Al system is currently associated with resolving at least one other error associated with at least one other erroneous signature. The closest prior art of record is Raichelgauz et al. (“ US 20210053573 A1 ”) which discloses a method for detecting an improperly driven vehicle, the method includes detecting a behavior of a monitored vehicle based on information sensed by a sensor, determining whether the behavior of the vehicle is an improper behavior, generating a unique vehicle identifier that identifies the monitored vehicle when it is determined to be improper and sending the improper vehicle label to a shared database accessible to other vehicles. However, the reference does not explicitly disclose “ when finding an erroneous signature of the signatures, by the controller, triggering a generation of a router that routes a sensed information unit (SIU) that is associated with the erroneous signature to a current error resolving part of the adaptable Al system, the current error resolving part of the adaptable Al system is currently associated with resolving at least one other error associated with at least one other erroneous signature ” . These features in addition to all other features required in the claimed invention are not fully disclosed by the prior art of record. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Raichelgauz (“ US 20250085391 A1 ”) is another invention by the applicant which also discloses solving inaccuracies associated with object detection. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT MICHAEL H HOANG whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-8491 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT Mon-Fri 8:30AM-4:30PM . 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Kakali Chaki can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT (571) 272-3719 . 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. /MICHAEL H HOANG/ PRIMARY EXAMINER, Art Unit 2122