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 Amendment
The amendment was filed on 8/25/2025.
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicants’ arguments filed under Remarks on pages 6-9 on 8/25/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicants state on page 8 that:
PNG
media_image1.png
208
668
media_image1.png
Greyscale
and on page 9 of the Remarks states that:
PNG
media_image2.png
508
658
media_image2.png
Greyscale
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Kundu discloses in section 4.2 page 3562 right hand column that network estimate the 2D projection of the canonical object center and the 2D amodal bounding box of the object where center of the box and the size of the box is defined. 3D object pose is obtained w.r.t. to the camera using object center on the image, an amodal box around the object and camera intrinsics. Fig.3 (d) illustrates this that the center projections are a part of the amodal boxes. The object center distance from camera d is computed such that the resulting shape projection tightly fits the amodal box, determining the object pose w.r.t. the camera. Section 5.1 on pages 3562 and 3563 (left column) where 3D shape and pose is predicted in addition to 2D box and class label; 2D targets amodal box and center projection in the network.
Kundu introduces the method by having an instance level 3D model that provides a representation of the scene that disentangles the 2D projection. The method/system/contribution is a fast inverse-graphics network called 3D-RCNN that is capable of estimating the amodal 3D shape and pose of all object instances in an image. Therefore, as stated in the previous rejection, Kundu discloses the method of claims 1-6, 8-13, and 15-20.
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 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-18 of U.S. Patent No. 11,989,900. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they are anticipated. Claims 1 and 7 are used as an example below in the table corresponding to patented claim 1. Claims 2-20 are similarly mapped and rejected to claims 2-18 of the ‘900 patent.
US Patent Application No., 18/633,275
US Patent No., 11,989,900
1. (Original) A computer-implemented method, the method comprising:
1. A computer-implemented method, the method comprising:
receiving an image of an object captured by a camera; and
receiving an image of an object captured by a camera;
processing the image of the object using an object recognition neural network that is configured to generate an object recognition output comprising:
processing the image of the object using an object recognition neural network that is configured to generate an object recognition output comprising:
data defining a predicted two-dimensional amodal center of the object, wherein the predicted two-dimensional amodal center of the object is a projection of a predicted three- dimensional center of the object under a camera pose of the camera that captured the image.
data defining a predicted two-dimensional amodal center of the object, wherein the predicted two-dimensional amodal center of the object is a projection of a predicted three-dimensional center of the object under a camera pose of the camera that captured the image;
7. (Original) The method of claim 1, further comprising: obtaining data specifying one or more other predicted two-dimensional amodal centers of the object in one or more other images captured under different camera poses; and
obtaining data specifying one or more other predicted two-dimensional amodal centers of the object in one or more other images captured under different camera poses; and
determining, from (i) the predicted two-dimensional amodal center of the object in the image and (ii) the one or more other predicted two-dimensional amodal centers of the object, the predicted three-dimensional center of the object.
determining, from (i) the predicted two-dimensional amodal center of the object in the image and (ii) the one or more other predicted two-dimensional amodal centers of the object, the predicted three-dimensional center of the object.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-6, 8-13, and 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kundu, et al. (“3D-RCNN: Instance-level 3D Object Reconstruction via Render-and-Compare”, paper, IEEE/CVF, June 2018, pp. 3559-3568) (hereafter, “Kundu”).
With regard to Claim 1 Kundu discloses a computer-implemented method, the method comprising: receiving an image of an object captured by a camera (Fig. 1) on page 3561; and processing the image of the object using an object recognition neural network that is configured to generate an object recognition output comprising: data defining a predicted two-dimensional amodal center of the object, wherein the predicted two-dimensional amodal center of the object is a projection of a predicted three- dimensional center of the object under a camera pose of the camera that captured the image (section 4.2 where the network estimates the 2D amodal bounding box of the object and the center of the box as well as object position is discussed; Section 5.1 where 3D shape, 3D pose is predicted in addition to 2D box and class label; prediction of the target by the network; 2D targets amodal box and center projection in the network are normalized with respect to roi box as seen on page 3563 left column).
With regard to claim 2 Kundu discloses wherein the object recognition output comprises pixel coordinates of the predicted two-dimensional amodal center (see section 4.2).
With regard to claim 3 Kundu discloses wherein the object recognition neural network comprises a regression output layer that generates the pixel coordinates of the predicted two- dimensional amodal center (Fig. 1 and section 4.2).
With regard to claim 4 Kundu discloses wherein the object recognition neural network is a multi-task neural network and the object recognition output also comprises data defining a bounding box for the object in the image (section 4.2, Fig. 1, 3 and section 5.4).
With regard to claim 5 Kundu discloses wherein the predicted two-dimensional amodal center is outside of the bounding box in the image (Fig. 3 where the amodal center is outside the bounding/detector box depending on the Rc, see section 4.2).
With regard to claim 6 Kundu discloses wherein the object recognition output comprises a truncation score that represents a likelihood that the object is truncated in the image (section 4.1).
With regard to claims 8 and 15, claims 8 and 15 are rejected same as claim 2 and the arguments similar to that presented above for claim 2 are equally applicable to claims 8 and 15, and all of the other limitations similar to claim 2 are not repeated herein, but incorporated by reference.
With regard to claims 9 and 16, claims 9 and 16 are rejected same as claim 2 and the arguments similar to that presented above for claim 2 are equally applicable to claims 9 and 16, and all of the other limitations similar to claim 2 are not repeated herein, but incorporated by reference.
With regard to claims 10 and 17, claims 10 and 17 are rejected same as claim 3 and the arguments similar to that presented above for claim 3 are equally applicable to claims 10 and 17, and all of the other limitations similar to claim 3 are not repeated herein, but incorporated by reference.
With regard to claims 11 and 18, claims 11 and 18 are rejected same as claim 4 and the arguments similar to that presented above for claim 4 are equally applicable to claims 11 and 18, and all of the other limitations similar to claim 4 are not repeated herein, but incorporated by reference.
With regard to claims 12 and 19, claims 12 and 19 are rejected same as claim 5 and the arguments similar to that presented above for claim 5 are equally applicable to claims 12 and 19, and all of the other limitations similar to claim 5 are not repeated herein, but incorporated by reference.
With regard to claims 13 and 20, claims 13 and 20 are rejected same as claim 6 and the arguments similar to that presented above for claim 6 are equally applicable to claims 13 and 20, and all of the other limitations similar to claim 6 are not repeated herein, but incorporated by reference.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7 and 14 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
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHEFALI D. GORADIA whose telephone number is (571)272-8958. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday 8AM-6PM, Friday 8AM-12PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Henok Shiferaw can be reached on 571-272-4637. 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.
SHEFALI D. GORADIA
Primary Patent Examiner
Art Unit 2676
/SHEFALI GORADIA/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2665