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, see papers filed March 4, 2026, with respect to the restriction requirement have been fully considered and are persuasive. The restriction of the claims has been withdrawn.
Double Patenting
Statutory
A rejection based on double patenting of the “same invention” type finds its support in the language of 35 U.S.C. 101 which states that “whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process... may obtain a patent therefor...” (Emphasis added). Thus, the term “same invention,” in this context, means an invention drawn to identical subject matter. See Miller v. Eagle Mfg. Co., 151 U.S. 186 (1894); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Ockert, 245 F.2d 467, 114 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1957).
A statutory type (35 U.S.C. 101) double patenting rejection can be overcome by canceling or amending the claims that are directed to the same invention so they are no longer coextensive in scope. The filing of a terminal disclaimer cannot overcome a double patenting rejection based upon 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 10 is provisionally rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as claiming the same invention as that of claim 4 of copending Application No. 18/526,787 (reference application).
Claim 10 compares to claim 4 of the reference application as follows:
Claim 10 of Current Application
Claim 4 of US Appl. No. 18/526,787
A method of detecting objects from camera produced images comprising:
A method of detecting objects from camera-produced images comprising:
generating multiple raw exposure-specific images for a scene;
generating multiple raw exposure-specific images for a scene;
deriving for each raw exposure-specific image a respective multi-level regional illumination distribution for use in computing respective exposure settings
deriving for each raw exposure-specific image a respective multi-level regional illumination distribution for use in computing respective exposure settings;
performing for the multiple raw exposure-specific images respective processes of image enhancement to produce respective processed exposure-specific images;
performing for said multiple raw exposure-specific images respective processes of image enhancement to produce respective processed exposure-specific images;
extracting from the processed exposure-specific images respective sets of exposure-specific features collectively constituting a superset of features;
extracting from said processed exposure-specific images respective sets of exposure-specific features collectively constituting a superset of features;
detecting a set of candidate objects using the superset of features;
recognizing a set of candidate objects using said superset of features;
and pruning the set of candidate objects to produce a set of objects within the scene.
and pruning said set of candidate objects to produce a set of objects within said scene.
This is a provisional statutory double patenting rejection since the claims directed to the same invention have not in fact been patented.
Non-Statutory
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 1, 2, 5, 6, 11, and 14-18 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 2, 11, 9, 10, and 13, respectively of copending Application No. 18/526, 787 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of the current application are more broad than the claims of the reference application.
Regarding claim 1, claim 1 compares to claim 2 of the reference claim as follows:
Claim 1 of the current application
Claim 2 of 18/526,787
Notes
A method of detecting objects from camera-produced images comprising:
A method of detecting objects from camera-produced images comprising:
Verbatim the same
generating multiple raw exposure-specific images for a scene;
generating multiple raw exposure-specific images for a scene;
Verbatim the same
performing for the multiple raw exposure-specific images respective processes of image enhancement to produce respective processed exposure-specific
images;
performing for said multiple raw exposure-specific images respective processes of image enhancement to produce respective processed exposure-specific images;
Verbatim the same, except for the use of “the” instead of “said”
extracting from the processed exposure-specific images respective sets of exposure-specific features collectively constituting a superset of features;
extracting from said processed exposure-specific images respective sets of exposure-specific features collectively constituting a superset of features;
Verbatim the same, except for the use of “the” instead of “said”
identifying, using the respective sets of exposure-specific features,
exposure-specific sets of candidate objects;
identifying, using said respective sets of exposure-specific features, exposure-specific sets of candidate objects;
Verbatim the same, except for the use of “the” instead of “said”
and fusing the exposure-specific sets of candidate objects to form a fused set of candidate objects.
fusing said exposure-specific sets of candidate objects to form a fused set of candidate objects;
Verbatim the same, except for the use of “the” instead of “said”
and pruning said set of candidate objects to produce a set of objects within said scene.
Thus, as can be seen from the above table, claim 2 of the reference application is a more broad recitation of claim 1 of the current application, and thus, anticipates every limitation in claim 1 of the current application.
As for claim 2, as mentioned above in the discussion of claim 1, claim 2 of the reference application discloses all of the limitations of the parent claim. Claim 2 of the reference application however, fails to explicitly disclose that the respective processes of image enhancement include one or more of contrast stretching, demosaicing, resizing, a power transform, color correction, threshold unsharp mask filtering, affine transform, or learned gamma correction. Official Notice is taken as to the fact that it is well known in the art to pre-process an image before perfroming HDR processing, wherein the pre-processing includes at least one of contrast stretching, demosaicing, resizing, a power transform, color correction, threshold unsharp mask filtering, affine transform, or learned gamma correction. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the benefits of perform such pre-processing including the benefits of preparing the image for processing, and producing higher quality results upon HDR processing. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify claim 2 of the reference application to include one or more of contrast stretching, demosaicing, resizing, a power transform, color correction, threshold unsharp mask filtering, affine transform, or learned gamma correction.
With respect to claim 5, as mentioned above in the discussion of claim 1, claim 2 of the reference application discloses all of the limitations of the parent claim. Claim 2 of the reference application however, fails to explicitly disclose that extracting the respective sets of exposure-specific features includes encoding a presence of wheels, headlights, glass texture, or metal texture among the respective sets of exposure-specific features. While it is likely that this is merely an intended use, since this limitation does not elaborate on the method, but merely specifies the type of data output, Official notice is taken as to the fact it is well known in the art to perform HDR processing on images that include wheels, headlights, glass texture, or metal texture. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the benefits of extracting features including a presence of wheels, headlights, glass texture, or metal texture so that higher quality HDR images of objects containing such features can be captured. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify claim 2 of the reference application to extract the respective sets of exposure-specific features includes encoding a presence of wheels, headlights, glass texture, or metal texture among the respective sets of exposure-specific features.
Regarding claim 6, as mentioned above in the discussion of claim 1, claim 2 of the reference application discloses all of the limitations of the parent claim. Claim 2 of the reference application however, fails to explicitly disclose that identifying the exposure-specific sets of candidate objects includes computing respective bounding boxes for the exposure-specific set of candidate objects. However, Official Notice is taken as to the fact that it is well known in the art to place bounding boxes around candidate objects in an object recognition process. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the benefits of placing bounding boxes around candidate objects in an object recognition process including the ability to visually see what the system identifies as a candidate object and to numerically represent an area in which the object lies. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify claim 2 of the reference application to place bounding boxes around candidate objects in an object recognition process.
As for claim 11, as mentioned above in the statutory double patenting rejection of claim 10, claim 4 of the reference application discloses all of the limitations of the claim. Claim 11 of the current application compares to claim 11 of the reference claim as follows:
Claim 11 of the current application
Claim 11 of 18/526,787
Notes
The method of claim 10, wherein the respective processes of image enhancement include one or more of contrast stretching, demosaicing, resizing, a power transform, color correction, threshold unsharp mask filtering, affine transform, or learned gamma correction.
The method of claim 4 wherein said respective processes of image enhancement for each exposure-specific image comprise: raw image contrast stretching, using lower and upper percentiles for pixel-wise affine mapping; image demosaicing; image resizing; a pixel-wise power transformation; and pixel-wise affine transformation with learned parameters.
Claim 11 of the reference application anticipates “one or more” of the limitations of claim 11 of the current application.
With regard to claim 14, as mentioned above in the discussion of claim 10, claim 4 of the reference application discloses all of the limitations of the parent claim. Claim 4 of the reference application however, fails to explicitly disclose that extracting the respective sets of exposure-specific features includes encoding a presence of wheels, headlights, glass texture, or metal texture among the respective sets of exposure-specific features. While it is likely that this is merely an intended use, since this limitation does not elaborate on the method, but merely specifies the type of data output, Official notice is taken as to the fact it is well known in the art to perform HDR processing on images that include wheels, headlights, glass texture, or metal texture. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the benefits of extracting features including a presence of wheels, headlights, glass texture, or metal texture so that higher quality HDR images of objects containing such features can be captured. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify claim 4 of the reference application to extract the respective sets of exposure-specific features includes encoding a presence of wheels, headlights, glass texture, or metal texture among the respective sets of exposure-specific features.
Regarding claim 15, as mentioned above in the discussion of claim 10, claim 4 of the reference application discloses all of the limitations of the parent claim. Claim 4 of the reference application however, fails to explicitly disclose that identifying the exposure-specific sets of candidate objects includes computing respective bounding boxes for the exposure-specific set of candidate objects. However, Official Notice is taken as to the fact that it is well known in the art to place bounding boxes around candidate objects in an object recognition process. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the benefits of placing bounding boxes around candidate objects in an object recognition process including the ability to visually see what the system identifies as a candidate object and to numerically represent an area in which the object lies. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify claim 2 of the reference application to place bounding boxes around candidate objects in an object recognition process.
As for claim 16, as mentioned above in the statutory double patenting rejection of claim 10, claim 9 of the reference application discloses all of the limitations of the claim. Claim 16 of the current application compares to claim 9 of the reference claim as follows:
Claim 16 of the current application
Claim 9 of 18/526,787
Notes
The method of claim 10, wherein pruning the sets of candidate objects includes removing a subset of candidate objects by non maximal suppression
(NMS).
The method of claim 8 further comprising: determining objectness of each detected object of said fused set of candidate objects; and pruning said fused set of candidate objects according to a non-maximum-suppression criterion.
Claim 16 of the current application is more broad and thus, claim 9 of the reference application anticipates the limitations of claim 16 of the current application.
As for claim 17, as mentioned above in the statutory double patenting rejection of claim 10, claim 9 of the reference application discloses all of the limitations of the claim. Claim 17 of the current application compares to claim 10 of the reference claim as follows:
Claim 17 of the current application
Claim 10 of 18/526,787
Notes
The method of claim 10, wherein pruning the sets of candidate objects includes merging the exposure-specific sets of candidate objects into respective ground truth objects using a keep best loss algorithm.
The method of claim 8 further comprising: determining objectness of each detected object of said superset of detected objects; and pruning said fused superset of detected objects according to a keep-best-loss principle.
Claim 17 of the current application is more broad and thus, claim 10 of the reference application anticipates the limitations of claim 16 of the current application.
As for claim 18, as mentioned above in the statutory double patenting rejection of claim 10, claim 9 of the reference application discloses all of the limitations of the claim. Claim 18 of the current application compares to claim 13 of the reference claim as follows:
Claim 18 of the current application
Claim 13 of 18/526,787
Notes
The method of claim 10, wherein pruning the sets of candidate objects includes employing a late fusion standard loss algorithm.
The method of claim 12 wherein said updating comprises processes of: establishing a loss function; and pruning backpropagation loss components.
Claim 18 of the current application is more broad and thus, claim 14 of the reference application anticipates the limitations of claim 16 of the current application.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 3 and 12 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 2 and 4, respectively, of copending Application No. 18/526,787 in view of Zhang et al. (Chinese Publ. No. CN105338219A).
Regarding claims 3 and 12, as mentioned above in the discussion of claim 1 and 10, respectively, claims 2 and 4, respectively, of the reference application discloses all of the limitations of the parent claim. The aforementioned reference application claims however, fail to explicitly disclose applying a first color space transform to Y, Cb, Cr color space; executing a denoising filter in the Y, Cb, Cr color space; and applying a second color space transform to RGB color space. Zhang, on the other hand, discloses that it is well known in the art to convert an image from the RGB color space to YCbCr color space prior to denoising, and then back to the RGB color space after denoising. See paragraphs 0040-0042 of the provided translation. Zhang discloses that YCrCb format is more conducive to noise reduction that RBG (see paragraph 0042 of the provided translation). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify claims 2 and 4, respectively by applying a first color space transform to Y, Cb, Cr color space; executing a denoising filter in the Y, Cb, Cr color space; and applying a second color space transform to RGB color space.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Claims 4 and 13 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 2 and 4, respectively, of copending Application No. 18/526,787 in view of Rotti et al (U.S. Publ. No. 2025/0111475).
Regarding claims 4 and 13, as mentioned above in the discussion of claim 1 and 10, respectively, claims 2 and 4, respectively, of the reference application discloses all of the limitations of the parent claim. The aforementioned reference application claims however, fail to explicitly disclose that extracting the respective sets of exposure-specific features includes employing a ResNet neural network to generate the respective sets of exposure-specific features. Rotti, on the other hand, discloses that it is well known in the art to utilize a RESNET to perform feature extraction in an HDR image processing system and method. More specifically, Rotti discloses a feature extraction network (105; see Figure 1) wherein the feature extraction network includes a RESNET (see paragraph 0035). As shown by this teaching, the substituted components and their functions were known in the art. Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art could have easily modified the feature extraction system of claims 2 and 4, respectively, of the reference application to include a RESNET network. Furthermore, the results of the combination would have been predictable – namely the ability to extract features from an image during HDR processing. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify claims 2 and 4, respectively by extracting the respective sets of exposure-specific features includes employing a ResNet neural network to generate the respective sets of exposure-specific features.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Claims 9 and 19 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 2 and 4, respectively, of copending Application No. 18/526,787 in view of Onzon et al (“Neural Auto-Exposure for High-Dynamic Range Object Detection”, IEEE, published Nov. 2, 2021).
Regarding claims 9 and 19, as mentioned above in the discussion of claim 1 and 10, respectively, claims 2 and 4, respectively, of the reference application discloses all of the limitations of the parent claim. The aforementioned reference application claims however, fail to explicitly disclose generating multiple raw exposure-specific images includes employing an exposure selection network to determine an exposure value for an exposure t based on an exposure value for an exposure t−1. Onzon, on the other hand, discloses that it is well known in the art to utilize an exposure selecton network to determine an exposure value for an exposure t based on an exposure value for an exposure t−1. See Section 4. Onzon, discloses that this methodology allows for a method that outperforms traditional methods with respect to quality. See section 7. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify claims 2 and 4, respectively generating multiple raw exposure-specific images includes employing an exposure selection network to determine an exposure value for an exposure t based on an exposure value for an exposure t−1.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7, 8, and 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN M VILLECCO whose telephone number is (571)272-7319. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs 6:00 AM-4:00 PM EST.
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.
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.
/JOHN VILLECCO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2661
Prosecution Insights