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 .
A Preliminary Amendment filed March 24, 2025, with amendments to the specification and claims has been entered.
Claim Interpretation
During patent examination, pending claims must be “given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification.” MPEP 2111; See also, MPEP 2173.02. Limitations appearing in the specification but not recited in the claim are not read into the claim. In re Prater, 415 F.2d 1393, 1404-05, 162 USPQ 541, 550-551 (CCPA 1969). See also, In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321-22, 13 USPQ2d 1320, 1322 (Fed. Cir. 1989) (“During patent examination the pending claims must be interpreted as broadly as their terms reasonably allow”). The reason is simply that during patent prosecution when claims can be amended, ambiguities should be recognized, scope and breadth of language explored, and clarification imposed. An essential purpose of patent examination is to fashion claims that are precise, clear, correct, and unambiguous. Only in this way can uncertainties of claim scope be removed, as much as possible, during the administrative process.
The Examiner respectfully requests of the Applicant in preparing responses, to consider fully the entirety of the reference(s) as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention. It is noted, REFERENCES ARE RELEVANT AS PRIOR ART FOR ALL THEY CONTAIN.
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.
The factual inquiries 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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 8-9, and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent No. 11,055,566 B1 to Pham et al. (hereinafter Pham) in view of by U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2023/0192418 A1 to Horowitz, et al. (hereinafter Horowitz).
With regards to claim 1, Pham discloses:
1. A method, comprising:
preprocessing a plurality of images to determine, for each respective image in the plurality of images, [an object lifting suitability score] and one or more object masks with corresponding object classifications for one or more objects in the respective image (see, detailed description including, Machine learning can include neural networks (e.g., a natural language processing neural network, a specialized object detection neural network, a concept-based object detection neural network, a known object class detection neural network, an object proposal neural network, an unknown object class detection neural network, a region proposal neural network, a concept embedding neural network, an object mask neural network, an object classification neural network, an category-based object detection neural network, a concept mask neural network, col. 8, lines 20-35);
With regards to claim 1, although Pham fails to explicitly disclose:
an object lifting suitability score;
storing the object lifting suitability scores and the one or more object masks with the corresponding object classifications; and
in response to a request for candidate images for object lifting:
providing a list of one or more of the plurality of images based on the object lifting suitability scores and the one or more object classifications.
Horowitz discloses:
an object lifting suitability score, (see, detailed description, including, compute nodes and/or sorting devices located at the sorting facilities can work in concert with cloud sorting server 112 to dynamically improve the accuracy of their identification/recognition of target objects and therefore increase the purity level of the collected materials, para. 00470, an improved accuracy is interpreted as a suitability score that also includes the sorting device being able to successfully perform a lift operation; and sorting logic 712 is configured to select a sorting device based on the known capabilities of the sorting device (e.g., the type of sorting mechanism that is used by the sorting device, the maximum amount of force that the sorting device can exert on an object, the maximum weight that the sorting device can lift, etc.), para. 0140);
storing the object lifting suitability scores and the one or more object masks with the corresponding object classifications (see detailed description, including, to use machine learning to improve/optimize the instructions that it sends to sorting devices to sort the variant objects sorting logic 712 is configured to determine the manner in which those target objects are to be removed using a reconfigurable set of sorting parameters. For example, the set of sorting parameters describes, but is not limited to, one or more of the following: which collection containers to deposit a target object given its determined object type, how much force/pressure to use to remove the target object from the stream and into corresponding collection containers, at which angle to direct force on the target object given its object type and/or being variant of the object type, and at which depth to drop a sorting mechanism (e.g., a picker mechanism) para. 0138); and
in response to a request for candidate images for object lifting:
providing a list of one or more of the plurality of images based on the object lifting suitability scores and the one or more object classifications (see, detailed description, including, is configured to select a sorting device to perform a sorting operation on a target object based on the range of capabilities of the sorting device and the attribute(s) associated with the target object. As described above, a sorting facility may include multiple sorting devices and each sorting device may be associated with a different type or other attribute that provides it a corresponding capability in being able to manipulate (e.g., capture, shoot at, push, etc.) objects. Given that the material stream that is received at the sorting facility may be heterogeneous in nature, different sorting devices and/or different instances of the same sorting devices but configured differently can be assigned to perform sorting operations on different types of target objects to best match each target object with the sorting device(s) that are most capable of sorting that target object, para. 0140).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill at the time the invention was filed, and having the teachings of Pham with Horowitz before her, to be motivated to combine the features from Horowitz, with Pham, including, compute nodes and/or sorting devices located at the sorting facilities can work in concert with cloud sorting server 112 to dynamically improve the accuracy of their identification/recognition of target objects and therefore increase the purity level of the collected materials, para. 00470, an improved accuracy is interpreted as a suitability score that also includes the sorting device being able to successfully perform a lift operation; and sorting logic 712 is configured to select a sorting device based on the known capabilities of the sorting device (e.g., the type of sorting mechanism that is used by the sorting device, the maximum amount of force that the sorting device can exert on an object, the maximum weight that the sorting device can lift, etc.), para. 0140);
storing the object lifting suitability scores and the one or more object masks with the corresponding object classifications (see detailed description, including, to use machine learning to improve/optimize the instructions that it sends to sorting devices to sort the variant objects sorting logic 712 is configured to determine the manner in which those target objects are to be removed using a reconfigurable set of sorting parameters. For example, the set of sorting parameters describes, but is not limited to, one or more of the following: which collection containers to deposit a target object given its determined object type, how much force/pressure to use to remove the target object from the stream and into corresponding collection containers, at which angle to direct force on the target object given its object type and/or being variant of the object type, and at which depth to drop a sorting mechanism (e.g., a picker mechanism) para. 0138); and
in response to a request for candidate images for object lifting:
providing a list of one or more of the plurality of images based on the object lifting suitability scores and the one or more object classifications (see, detailed description, including, is configured to select a sorting device to perform a sorting operation on a target object based on the range of capabilities of the sorting device and the attribute(s) associated with the target object. As described above, a sorting facility may include multiple sorting devices and each sorting device may be associated with a different type or other attribute that provides it a corresponding capability in being able to manipulate (e.g., capture, shoot at, push, etc.) objects. Given that the material stream that is received at the sorting facility may be heterogeneous in nature, different sorting devices and/or different instances of the same sorting devices but configured differently can be assigned to perform sorting operations on different types of target objects to best match each target object with the sorting device(s) that are most capable of sorting that target object, para. 0140).
Therefore, a rationale to support a conclusion that a claim would have been obvious is that all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art1.
With regards to claim 2, Horowitz discloses:
2. The method of claim 1, wherein the list is further based on a selection of a classification (see, detailed description, including, tracking logic 708 is configured to input the sensed data to one or more types of machine learning models (e.g., in parallel or serially) to determine, for example, one or more of the following: the object type (or a variant thereof), the material characteristic type (e.g., the polymer type, aluminum), an attribute, mass, weight, the SKU, a feature, and/or another type of classification of each object within the sensed data (e.g., images). para. 0121.
With regard to claim 8, claim 8 (a system claim) recites substantially similar limitations to claim 1 (a method claim) (with the addition of a processor a memory storing instructions, see Pham, col. 34, lines 45-49) and is therefore rejected using the same art and rationale set forth above.
With regard to claim 9, claim 9 (a system claim) recites substantially similar limitations to claim 2 (a method claim) and is therefore rejected using the same art and rationale set forth above.
With regard to claim 15, claim 15 (a non-transitory computer readable memory claim) recites substantially similar limitations to claim 1 (a method claim) (with the addition of a processor a memory storing instructions, see Pham, col. 34, lines 45-49) and is therefore rejected using the same art and rationale set forth above.
With regard to claim 16, claim 16 (a non-transitory computer readable memory claim) recites substantially similar limitations to claim 2 (a method claim) and is therefore rejected using the same art and rationale set forth above.
Claim(s) 3-4, 10-11, and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent No. 11,055,566 B1 to Pham et al. (hereinafter Pham) in view of by U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2023/0192418 A1 to Horowitz, et al. (hereinafter Horowitz) and further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2017/0139573 A1 to LI et al (hereinafter LI).
With regards to claim 3, neither Pham nor Horowitz explicitly disclose:
in response to a selection of an image in the list, extracting a sticker image based on an object mask corresponding to the selected; and
performing an action based on the sticker.
With regards to claim 3, LI discloses:
3. The method of claim 1, further comprising:
in response to a selection of an image in the list, extracting a sticker image based on an object mask corresponding to the selected image (see, detailed description, including, cuts off a portion of the foreground, e.g. the sticker, for fitting for a specific background object, para. 0030); and
performing an action based on the sticker image (see, detailed description, including, It is noted that the mechanism incorporating the mask set over the background image according to the present invention is different from the conventional technology that cuts off a portion of the foreground, e.g. the sticker, for fitting for a specific background object, para. 0030).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill at the time the invention was filed, and having the teachings of Pham with Horowitz with LI before her, to be motivated to combine the features from LI, with Pham and Horowitz, including, in response to a selection of an image in the list, extracting a sticker image based on an object mask corresponding to the selected image (see, detailed description, including, cuts off a portion of the foreground, e.g. the sticker, for fitting for a specific background object, para. 0030); and
performing an action based on the sticker image (see, detailed description, including, It is noted that the mechanism incorporating the mask set over the background image according to the present invention is different from the conventional technology that cuts off a portion of the foreground, e.g. the sticker, for fitting for a specific background object, para. 0030).
Therefore, a rationale to support a conclusion that a claim would have been obvious is that all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art2.
LI discloses:
4. The method of claim 1, further comprising:
in response to a selection of an image in the list and a selected location in the selected image (see, detailed description, including, the system allows a user to handle the composited images, which is interpreted to include a list of images, para. 0024);
selecting an object mask from the one or more object masks of the selected image (see, detailed description, including, the system allows a user to handle the composited images including animation through a user interface. In particular, when the user wants to create a visual effect that a part of sticker image is hidden behind some objects in a background image, para. 0024);
extracting a sticker image from the selected image based the selected object mask (see, detailed description, and as above, including, a part of sticker image is hidden behind some objects in a background image through masks, para. 0024); and
performing an action based on the sticker image (see, detailed description, including, an aspect of the present invention, the sticker image acts as a foreground picture that can be an animation, para. 0024).
With regard to claim 10, claim 10 (a system claim) recites substantially similar limitations to claim 3 (a method claim) and is therefore rejected using the same art and rationale set forth above.
With regard to claim 11, claim 11 (a system claim) recites substantially similar limitations to claim 4 (a method claim) and is therefore rejected using the same art and rationale set forth above.
With regard to claim 17, claim 17 (a non-transitory computer readable memory claim) recites substantially similar limitations to claim 3 (a method claim) and is therefore rejected using the same art and rationale set forth above.
With regard to claim 18, claim 18 (a non-transitory computer readable memory claim) recites substantially similar limitations to claim 4 (a method claim) and is therefore rejected using the same art and rationale set forth above.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-7, 12-14, and 19-20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 5-7 are produced below for convenience:
5. The method of claim 1, wherein:
images in the plurality of images include associated videos;
the preprocessing further determines an animated lifting suitability score for corresponding images in the plurality of images, and storing the animated lifting suitability scores; and
the list is further based on the animated lifting suitability scores.
6. The method of claim 5, wherein the preprocessing further determines a 6. time mask for the associated videos, and the method further comprises:
in response to a selection of an image in the list, extracting an animated sticker based on the time mask for the selected image; and
performing an action based on the animated sticker.
7. The method of claim 1, wherein:
images in the plurality of images include live images comprising a primary still image and an associated video; and
the preprocessing determines an animated lifting suitability score for a video associated with a first live image, determines a still lifting suitability score for the primary still image associated with the first live image, and stores the animated lifting suitability score and the still lifting image suitability score.
A sampling of the prior art made of record and not relied upon and considered pertinent to Applicants’ disclosure includes: U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0035727 A1 to Scott II et al. that discusses: Provided is a method, computer program product, and system for automatically assigning robotic devices to users based on need using predictive analytics. A processor may monitor activities performed by one or more users. The processor may determine, based on the monitoring, a set of activities that require assistance from a robotic device when being performed by the one or more users. The processor may match the set of activities to a set of capabilities related to a plurality of robotic devices. The processor may identify, based on the matching, a first robotic device that is capable of assisting the one or more users in performing a first activity of the set of activities. The processor may deploy the first robotic device to assist the one or more users in performing the first activity.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM D. TITCOMB whose telephone number is (571)270-5190. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30 AM - 6:30 PM (M-F).
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 C. Hong can be reached at 571-272-4124. 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.
WILLIAM D. TITCOMB
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2178
/WILLIAM D TITCOMB/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2178 1-9-2026
1 1 KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727, 82 U.S.P.Q.2d 1385 (2007).
2 1 KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727, 82 U.S.P.Q.2d 1385 (2007).