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 .
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 USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The 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/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 9-15 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-7 of U.S. Patent No. 11,978,181. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the present claims are either anticipated by or obvious variants of the patent claims. The following table shows the corresponding limitations between representative claims and representative patent claims.
Present Application Claims
Patent claims
9. A processor comprising: one or more circuits to use one or more trained neural networks to process a plurality of luminance values of one or more images from one or more cameras to perform a machine vision task.
10. The processor of claim 9, wherein each image of the one or more images comprises a first channel comprising luminance values of the respective image and one or more additional channels comprising additional information about the respective image, wherein the plurality of luminance values of the respective image comprises a luminance value for each pixel in the respective image.
11. The processor of claim 9, wherein the machine vision task comprises an automated vision task for an automobile.
12. The processor of claim 9, wherein the one or more circuits are further to: determine, for each image of the one or more images, the plurality of luminance values for the image, wherein each image of the one or more images comprises data identifying a camera used to capture the respective image, and wherein one or more properties and one or more configuration parameters of the camera are used to determine the plurality of luminance values for the image.
13. The processor of claim 12, wherein to determine the plurality of luminance values for an image, the processor is further to: receive, at an image signal processor (ISP) associated with the camera, data of the image from a sensor of the camera, wherein the data of the image comprise a plurality of channels representing color information of the image; process the plurality of channels of the image to generate a second plurality of channels in a corrected color space; determine an exposure value of the camera based on a set of exposure parameters of the camera; and determine the plurality of luminance values for the image based at least in part on the second plurality of channels and the exposure value.
14. The processor of claim 9, wherein the one or more circuits are further to: determine, for each image of the one or more images, the plurality of luminance values for the image; determine, for each image of the one or more images, a corresponding luminance value of a scene of the respective image; and determine, for each object of a plurality of objects within the one or more images, a corresponding target difficulty of the object based at least in part on a subset of the plurality of luminance values associated with the respective object and a corresponding luminance value of a scene of an image comprising the object.
15. The processor of claim 9, wherein the one or more circuits are further to: determine, for each image of the one or more images, the plurality of luminance values for the image; determine, for each image of the one or more images, a corresponding luminance value of a scene of the respective image; and determine, for each object of a plurality of objects within the one or more images, a corresponding signal to noise ratio (SNR) of the object based at least in part on a subset of the plurality of luminance values associated with the respective object and a corresponding luminance value of a scene of an images associated with the object.
1. A processor comprising: one or more circuits to determine a plurality of luminance values for one or more images from one or more cameras based at least in part on a plurality of channels in a corrected color space and one or more exposure values, the one or more circuits to use one or more trained neural networks to process the plurality of luminance values of the one or more images to perform a machine vision task.
2. The processor of claim 1, wherein each image of the one or more images comprises a first channel comprising luminance values of the respective image and one or more additional channels comprising additional information about the respective image, wherein the plurality of luminance values of the respective image comprises a luminance value for each pixel in the respective image.
3. The processor of claim 1, wherein the machine vision task comprises an automated vision task for an automobile.
4. The processor of claim 1, wherein each image of the one or more images comprises data identifying a camera used to capture the respective image, and wherein one or more properties and one or more configuration parameters of the camera are used to determine the plurality of luminance values for the image.
5. The processor of claim 4, wherein to determine the plurality of luminance values for an image, the processor is further to: receive, at an image signal processor (ISP) associated with the camera, data of the image from a sensor of the camera, wherein the data of the image comprise a plurality of initial channels representing color information of the image; process the plurality of initial channels of the image to generate the plurality of channels in the corrected color space; and determine the exposure value of the camera based on a set of exposure parameters of the camera.
6. The processor of claim 1, wherein the one or more circuits are further to: determine, for each image of the one or more images, a corresponding luminance value of a scene of the respective image; and determine, for each object of a plurality of objects within the one or more images, a corresponding target difficulty of the object based at least in part on a subset of the plurality of luminance values associated with the respective object and a corresponding luminance value of a scene of an image comprising the object.
7. The processor of claim 1, wherein the one or more circuits are further to: determine, for each image of the one or more images, a corresponding luminance value of a scene of the respective image; and determine, for each object of a plurality of objects within the one or more images, a corresponding signal to noise ratio (SNR) of the object based at least in part on a subset of the plurality of luminance values associated with the respective object and a corresponding luminance value of a scene of an images associated with 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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-2, 16-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Schuck, III (US 2021/0215536).
As to claim 1, Schuck, III discloses a processor comprising: one or more circuits to use a plurality of luminance values of one or more images from one or more cameras to train one or more neural networks (para. 0026, 0027, 0029).
As to claim 2, Schuck, III discloses the processor of claim 1, wherein the luminance values are absolute luminance values (para. 0029).
As to claims 16-17, these claims recite features similar to those discussed above. Therefore, they are rejected for reasons similar to those discussed above.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 7, 9-12, 16, 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by EGILMEZ (US 2022/0191523).
As to claim 9, EGILMEZ disclose a processor comprising: one or more circuits (Fig. 1, para. 0075) to use one or more trained neural networks (Fig. 2D, para. 0085) to process a plurality of luminance values (para. 0067, 0073) of one or more images from one or more cameras (para. 0085) to perform a machine vision task (para. 0085).
As to claim 10, EGILMEZ disclose the processor of claim 9, wherein each image of the one or more images comprises a first channel comprising luminance values of the respective image and one or more additional channels comprising additional information about the respective image, wherein the plurality of luminance values of the respective image comprises a luminance value for each pixel in the respective image (para. 0067).
As to claim 11, EGILMEZ disclose the processor of claim 9, wherein the machine vision task comprises an automated vision task for an automobile (para. 0063, 0081, 0085).
As to claim 12, EGILMEZ disclose the processor of claim 9, wherein the one or more circuits are further to: determine, for each image of the one or more images, the plurality of luminance values for the image, wherein each image of the one or more images comprises data identifying a camera used to capture the respective image, and wherein one or more properties and one or more configuration parameters of the camera are used to determine the plurality of luminance values for the image (para. 0038, 0067, 0085, 0114, 0130, 0229).
As to claims 1, 3, 7, 16, 18, these claims recite features similar to those discussed above. Therefore, they are rejected for reasons similar to those discussed above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
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) 2, 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over EGILMEZ (US 2022/0191523) in view of Schuck, III (US 2021/0215536).
As to claims 2, 17, EGILMEZ discloses all the claim limitations mentioned above with respect to claims 1, 16, except for absolute luminance values.
Schuck, III discloses wherein the luminance values are absolute luminance values (para. 0029).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to replace the luminance values in EGILMEZ with the absolute luminance values as taught by Schuck, III since doing this would amount to a simple substitution of one known element for another in order to obtain predictable results.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-6, 8, 13-15, 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The prior art, EGILMEZ, discloses the claim limitations discussed above, but fails to disclose the combined features required by each of dependent claims 4-6, 8, 13-15, 19-20.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PHUOC TRAN whose telephone number is (571)272-7399. The examiner can normally be reached 9am-5pm.
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, Vu Le can be reached at 571-272-7332. 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.
/PHUOC TRAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2668