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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This communication is a non-Final office action in merits. Claims 8-10, and 18-20 are canceled. Claims 1, 4-7, 11, 14-17, after restriction election and amendment, are presently pending and have been elected and considered below.
Restriction
Applicant elected, without traverse, Species II (claims 4-7, 14-17) for further examination.
Drawings
A drawing document is missing.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-7, 11-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claims contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 recites computer-implemented method including, among other limitations, “yyyy.”
Applicant(s) is/are respectfully reminded, for computer-implemented functional claims, “examiners should determine whether the specification discloses the computer and the algorithm (e.g., the necessary steps and/or flowcharts) that perform the claimed function in sufficient detail such that one of ordinary skill in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor invented the claimed subject matter.” MPEP § 2161.01(I).
As an initial matter, the Examiner notes that claim 1 is an originally-filed claim (including original dependent claims 8-10 being incorporated upon restriction selection. Claim 1 recites utilizing a neural network to reduce identification limitations, comprising limitations or functions of: obtaining an indication for a detection limitation of the neural network with respect to the object, wherein the detection limitation of the neural network prevents the neural network from generating a neural network output that is indicative of the object with at least a desirable certainty; feeding the sensed information unit to the neural network to provide a neural network output; and controlling a detection of the object by the neural network based on an indication that the object is captured in the sensed information unit; and performing a driving related operation based on the detecting of the object by the neural network, wherein the performing of the driving related operation comprises autonomously driving the vehicle.
However, originally-filed claim 1 does not disclose how such functions being performed with respect to a neural network. Furthermore, while a neural network being generally described as a terminology or a system consisting input and outputs in claim 1 as well as in original specification, neither the claim nor specification provides the necessary written description support for claim 1. That is to say, originally-filed claim 1 does not provide an algorithm that performs the function recited within in sufficient detail such that one of ordinary skill in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor invented the claimed subject matter.
Applicant’s specification also does not describe an algorithm that performs the function indicated in claim 1 in sufficient detail such that one of ordinary skill in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor invented the claimed subject matter. For example, Applicant’s specification does not disclose a layering structure/architecture of the neural network, a configuration of the neural network, algorithm(s) being used to train or update the network, detailed operations of the neural network to achieve the objective, etc. In summary, original specification does not disclosure details to perform the claimed function in sufficient detail such that one of ordinary skill in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor invented the claimed subject matter.
Therefore, claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, for lack of written description must be made.” MPEP § 2161.01(I).
Independent claim 11 recites similar limitations as claim 1. It is rejected with the same reason. Dependent claims 2-7, 12-17, depending from their respective base claims, are rejected with the same reason.
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 1-7. 11-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites: “feeding the sensed information unit to the neural network to provide a neural network output” which is ambiguous/unclear. The sensed information unit is a component or an input unit that captures the information. What needs to feed to the neural network appears to be the sensed information captured by the unit, not the unit itself.
Independent claim 11 recites similar limitations as claim 1. It is rejected with the same reason. Dependent claims 2-7, 12-17, depending from their respective base claims, are rejected with the same reason.
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 of this title, 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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or
nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 4-7, 11, 14-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2021/0263152 A1, Halder (hereinafter Halder).
As to claim 1, Halder discloses a method that is computer implemented and is for overcoming an object detection limitation of a neural network, the method comprises:
obtaining a sensed information unit that captures an object (Fig 1A);
obtaining an indication for a detection limitation of the neural network with respect to the object (Figs 7-8; pars 0007, 0030, 0073, 0097, 0106, 0108, indicating low certainty or confidence of object identification), wherein the detection limitation of the neural network prevents the neural network from generating a neural network output that is indicative of the object with at least a desirable certainty (Figs 7-8; pars 0007, 0030, 0073, 0097, 0106, 0108, 0110-0112);
feeding the sensed information unit to the neural network to provide a neural network output (Figs 1A-1B, 2A, 3; pars 0047-0048); and
controlling a detection of the object by the neural network based on an indication that the object is captured in the sensed information unit (Figs 1A-1B, 7-8; pars 0007, 0030, 0047-0048, 0073, 0097, 0106, 0108, 0110-0112); and
performing a driving related operation based on the detecting of the object by the neural network, wherein the performing of the driving related operation comprises autonomously driving the vehicle (Figs 1A-1B, 2A, 6; pars 0004-0006, 0008-0009, 0024-0028).
Although Halder discloses or teaches above limitations in more than ne embodiment, consider Halder’s teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of skill in the art before the filing date of invention to combine Halder’s teachings and provide predictable object detection result and/or improvement.
2-3. (Withdrawn)
As to claim 4, Halder discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein the detection limitation is an object size limitation (pars 0073, 0082, size of the object).
As to claim 5, Halder discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein the neural network is trained to detect objects within a specified size range within the desirable certainty (pars 0076, 0076, 0084, 0089, the model being trained to detect objects with boundaries, shapes, types, categories etc.), and is configurable for object detection beyond the specified size range at a certainty the is lower than the desirable certainty (Figs 1A, 2A; pars 0057, 0073-0074, adjustable range).
As to claim 6, Halder discloses the method according to claim 5, wherein the indication that the object is captured by the sensed information unit is provided when tracking after the object, while a distance between the object and a sensor of the sensed information unit changes from a distance in which the object is within the specified size range to a distance in which the object is beyond the specified size range (pars 0008, 0029-0030, 0057, 0092, 0095-0096, 0106, 0109, additional detection outputs being provided when either the vehicle or the objects being detected are in motion (e.g. tracking), which change the distance and/or sizes of the objects observed).
As to claim 7, Halder discloses the method according to claim 5, wherein the indication that the object is captured by the sensed information unit is provided when tracking after the object, while the object moves from a high resolution region of the sensed information unit to a low resolution region of the sensed information unit (Figs 1A, 2A, objects captured from remote sensors and/or on-board sensors or different types of sensors providing different resolutions and capturing objects from different regions; pars 0005-0006, 0028, 0069, 0073).
8. (Cancelled).
9. (Cancelled).
10. (Cancelled).
As to claim 11, it recites a non-transitory CRM storing instructions executed to perform functions and features of claim 1. Rejection of claim 1 is therefore incorporated herein.
12-13. (Withdrawn)
As to claims 14-17, they are rejected with the same reason as set forth in claims 4-7, respectively.
18. (Cancelled).
19. (Cancelled).
20. (Cancelled).
Examiner’s Note
Examiner has cited particular column, line number, paragraphs and/or figure(s) in the reference(s) as applied to the claims for the convenience of the Applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant in preparing responses, to fully consider the reference(s) in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to QUN SHEN whose telephone number is (571)270-7927. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri 8:30-5:50 PT.
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, Amandeep Saini can be reached on 571-272-3382. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/QUN SHEN/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2662
Prosecution Insights