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.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “means” or “step” but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) do not recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“a multi-dimensional attention block configured to…” (claim 1).
“a convolution block configured to…” (claim 1).
For an analysis of the structure, material, or acts corresponding to the claimed functions, see rejection under 35 USC § 112(b) infra.
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 wishes to provide further explanation or dispute the examiner’s interpretation of the corresponding structure, applicant must identify the corresponding structure with reference to the specification by page and line number, and to the drawing, if any, by reference characters in response to this Office action.
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 § 112
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 1-9 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “means” or “step” but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) do not recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“a multi-dimensional attention block configured to…” (claim 1).
“a convolution block configured to…” (claim 1).
However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function.
Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. For the purpose of examination, any computer capable of performing the claimed functions reads on the claims.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claims 2-9 are rejected as they are being directly or indirectly dependent on rejected claim 1.
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 22-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claims do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because the term “machine readable storage medium” can be directed to a transitory signal, carrier wave, or similar embodiment capable of storing information.
Regarding Claim 22, regarding the claimed machine readable storage medium, under a recent precedential opinion, the scope of the recited “machine readable storage medium” encompasses transitory media such as signals or carrier waves, where, as here the Specification does not limit the computer-readable storage media to non-transitory forms. See Ex parte Mewherter, 107 USPQ2d 1857, 1862.
Applicants are advised to amend the claim by prefacing the term “machine readable storage medium” in claim 22 with “non-transitory”, to recite “non-transitory machine readable storage medium ". This would render Claim 22 statutory under 35 U.S.C. 101 based on the latest guidance available to the examiner.
Regarding Dependent Claim 23, fail to cure the deficiency of independent Claim 22, and therefore are also rejected under 35 USC § 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter for the same reason addressed above.
Claims 1, 7-9, 12, 18, and 20-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The analysis of the claims’ subject matter eligibility will follow the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50-57 (January 7, 2019) (“2019 PEG”).
With respect to claim 1.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter? Yes—claim 1 recites an apparatus, which is a machine.
Step 2A, prong one: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature or natural phenomenon? Yes—the limitations identified below each, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mental processes abstract idea grouping (concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion)), see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III and the 2019 PEG, but for the recitation of generic computer components:
“dynamically generate convolutional kernel scalars along four dimensions of a 3- dimensional convolution kernel space based on the input feature map, the four dimensions comprising an output channel number, an input channel number, a temporal size and a spatial size;… sequentially multiply the generated convolutional kernel scalars with a static 3-dimensional convolution kernel in a matrix-vector product way to obtain a dynamic kernel of dynamic quadruple convolution”: (Mental processes- concept of observation and evaluation of labeling datasets).
Step 2A, prong two: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? No—the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
“receive an input feature map of a video data sample;” involves the mere gathering of data, which is insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP § 2106.05(g).
“a multi-dimensional attention block configured to:”, “a convolution block configured to…”: mere instructions to “apply it” because it only includes high level of generality description to apply the abstract idea. See MPEP § 2106.05(f).
The generic computer components in these steps are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic computer component performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No—there are no additional limitations beyond the mental processes identified above. The limitation treated above, are directed to the well-understood, routine, and conventional activity of storing and retrieving information in memory. See MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II); Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015). It also includes limitations that Merely reciting the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f). The additional element is insignificant application, which is similar to examples of activities that the courts have found to be insignificant extra-solution activity, in accordance with MPEP 2106.05(g), Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept.
Thus, considering the additional elements individually and in combination and the claims as a whole, the additional elements do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. This claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 7.
Step 1: A method, as above.
Step 2A Prong 2, Step 2B: The claim recites that “wherein the multi-dimensional attention block is embedded in each convolutional layer of the 3D CNN”, involves mere instructions to “apply it” because it only includes high level of generality description to apply the abstract idea. See MPEP § 2106.05(f).
Claim 8.
Step 1: A method, as above.
Step 2A Prong 2, Step 2B: The claim recites that “wherein the dynamic quadruple convolution is applied to any type of 3D CNN”, involves mere instructions to “apply it” because it only includes high level of generality description to apply the abstract idea. See MPEP § 2106.05(f).
Claim 9.
Step 1: A method, as above.
Step 2A Prong 2, Step 2B: The claim recites that “wherein the dynamic quadruple convolution is performed for at least one of advanced video analysis tasks, transfer learning or action recognition”, involves mere instructions to “apply it” because it only includes high level of generality description to apply the abstract idea. See MPEP § 2106.05(f).
Claims 12, 18-21
Step 1: The claims recite a method; therefore, they fall into the statutory category of process.
Step 2A Prong 1: The claims recite the same mental processes as claims 1, 7-9, respectively.
Step 2A Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The analysis mirrors that of claims 1, 7-9, respectively.
Step 2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The analysis, with the one exception noted above, mirrors that of claims 1, 7-9, respectively.
Claim 22
Step 1: The claim recite a machine readable storage medium; please see rejection above for not claiming one of the statutory categories, process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter.
Step 2A Prong 1: Claim 22 recite the same mental processes as claim 1.
Step 2A Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Claim 1 recite generic computer components, namely “machine readable storage medium”. As before, the mere recitation that the method is to be performed on a generic computer amounts to a mere instruction to apply the exception on the computer. See MPEP § 2106.05(f). With that exception, the analysis mirrors that of claim 1.
Step 2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The analysis, with the one exception noted above, mirrors that of claim 1.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-6, 13-17 and 23 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 22-23 further needs to overcome the 112b rejection above.
Regarding prior art, claims 1-20 contain allowable subject matter.
claims 1-20 are allowable over prior art since the prior art taken individually or in combination fails to particularly disclose, fairly suggest, or render obvious the independent claim as a whole.
In addition, examiner notes, the claims should also be amended to overcome the claim rejections indicated in this Office action; and the claim amendments do not raise new issues that would require an updated rejection of claims.
The closest prior arts, listed below, discloses:
He et al. (NPL “DyCo3D: Robust Instance Segmentation of 3D Point Clouds through Dynamic Convolution”, 2021 IEEE/CVF) teaches a multi-dimensional attention block configured to: receive an input feature map of a video data sample (see page 356, “We denote the features output by the backbone as Fb ∈ RN×D, where D is the dimension of the output chan nel. Three parallel branches are built upon Fb for semantic segmentation (Fseg ∈ RN× C), offset prediction (Ooff ∈ RN×3), and instance masking (Fmask ∈ RN× D), where C is the category number.”
PNG
media_image1.png
338
942
media_image1.png
Greyscale
), dynamically generate convolutional kernel scalars (see page 357, “To generate discriminative filters for distinguishing different instances we propose to group homogenous points that have close votes for the geometric centroids and share the category predictions. Then instance-aware filters are dynamically generated by applying a small sub-network for large context aggregation, as shown in Fig. 3…For cluster Cz, we first voxelize it with a grid size of g, which is set to 14 in all our experiments. The features of each grid is calculated as the average of the point feature Fb within the grid, where Fb is the output of the backbone. To aggregate context for cluster Cz, a light-weighted sub network Gw(·) is maintained. It contains two sparse convolutional layers with a kernel size of 3, a global pooling layer, and an MLP layer. The output is all convolutional parameters flattened in a compact vector, Wz C. Each Wz C is responsible for one specific instance. The size of Wz C is decided by the feature dimension and the number of the subsequent convolution layers (see Eq. 3).”
PNG
media_image2.png
346
460
media_image2.png
Greyscale
).
However, He do not teach dynamically generate convolutional kernel scalars along four dimensions of a 3- dimensional convolution kernel space based on the input feature map, the four dimensions comprising an output channel number, an input channel number, a temporal size and a spatial size; and a convolution block configured to sequentially multiply the generated convolutional kernel scalars with a static 3-dimensional convolution kernel in a matrix-vector product way to obtain a dynamic kernel of dynamic quadruple convolution.
Liu et al. (“TAM: Temporal Adaptive Module for Video Recognition”, 2021 IEEE/CVF) teaches on page 13690, “Dynamic convolutions. [16] first proposed the dynamic filters on the tasks of video and stereo prediction, and designed a convolutional encoder-decoder as filter-generating network. Several works [45, 3] in image tasks attempted to generate aggregation weights for a set of convolutional kernels, and then produce a dynamic kernel. Our motivation is different from these methods. We aim to use this temporal adaptive module to deal with temporal variations in videos. Specifically, we design an efficient form to implement this temporal dynamic kernel based on input feature maps, which is critical for understanding the video content.”
PNG
media_image3.png
716
708
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
570
698
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Kalantari et al. (US 12361703 B2) teaches The common feature extractor 230 is arranged to be recurrent in that it implements a temporal dynamic behavior, where at least a part of the result of the analysis performed for one instance of the feature data stream is fed back and provided as input for the analysis to be performed for a future or alter instance of the feature data stream. This is indicated by the feedback arrow indicated as having a delay (indicated by a ‘d’ in a triangle) associated with it in FIG. 2A. The delay indicates that the output for one frame (i−1) is used as the input for a subsequent frame (i). It should be noted that the delay need not be for a single next frame, but can alternatively or additionally be for one or several frames and for one or several frames in time. That the common feature extractor 230 is recurrent or exhibiting temporal dynamic behavior, provides a temporal aspect to the feature extraction and the common feature extraction is thus based on both temporal aspects (as the common feature extractor 230 exhibits temporal dynamic behavior) and spatial aspects (as the common feature extractor 230 receives feature data from several image sources arranged at different locations). This enables for providing feature data of a high class for enabling a high accurate object detection, while not requiring exhaustive or practically impossible computing resources.
In summary, the references made of record, fail to disclose the required claimed technical features recited by the independent claim limitations as a whole.
The dependent claims, being further limiting to the independent claims, definite, and enable by the Specification would also be considered allowable if the noted rejections were overcome.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to IMAD M KASSIM whose telephone number is (571)272-2958. The examiner can normally be reached 10:30AM-5:30PM, M-F (E.S.T.).
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, Michael J. Huntley can be reached at (303) 297 - 4307. 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.
/IMAD KASSIM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2129
Prosecution Insights