CTNF 18/652,569 CTNF 79747 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Notice to Applicants This communication is in response to the Application filed on 5/1/2024. Claims 1-20 are pending. Claims 17-20 are newly added. Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 5/1/2024 has been considered by the examiner. Election/Restrictions Applicant’s election with traverse of Group I claims 1-11 in the reply filed on 4/8/2026 is acknowledged. However, based on the remarks filed on 4/8/2026, the previously made restriction is withdrawn as the claims 12-16 from Group II are now dependent from claim 2 (part of generic claim 1). 07-30-03-h AIA Claim Interpretation 07-30-03 AIA The following is a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. 07-30-06 This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “equivariant cross-attention module”, “Fourier Transform module”, in claim s 12-16. 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 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 § 101 07-04-01 AIA 07-04 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 1-11 and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., abstract idea - mathematical concept/formulation) without significantly more. Claim 17 is used as an example. (1) Are the claims directed to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter; (2A) Prong One : Are the claims directed to a judicially recognized exception, i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea; Prong Two : If the claims are directed to a judicial exception under Prong One, then is the judicial exception integrated into a practical application; (2B) If the claims are directed to a judicial exception and do not integrate the judicial exception, do the claims provide an inventive concept. 17. (New) A method for operating a vehicle, comprising: (a) receiving image data of one or more objects having rotations in a three-dimensional (3D) space, wherein the 3D space is associated with a surrounding environment for the vehicle; (b) performing equivariance of the image data in the 3D space for image analysis and computer vision functions; and (c) performing one or more autonomous operations of the vehicle in response to the image analysis and the computer vision functions based on the equivariance. With regard to (1), the instant claims recite a method and an apparatus (a vehicle), therefore the answer is "yes". With regard to (2A), Prong One : Yes. When viewed under the broadest most reasonable interpretation, the instant claims are directed to a Judicial Exception – an abstract idea belonging to the group of mathematical concept and mental process. The steps of “receiving”, “performing”, and “performing” are generically recited because there is no description of how this is accomplished. It can be interpreted as merely looking at the data. There is nothing in the claim that requires more than an operation that a human, armed with the appropriate apparatus executing a mathematical algorithm can perform. Claims recites receiving image data and performing an operation, these are steps reciting generic mental steps of ‘receiving’ and ‘performing’. The image data received and processed is used for object detection. Further, “receiving image data of an object in a 3D space surrounding environment for the vehicle” and “performing object detection” [emphasis added] are well known in the art. These steps are using the data to perform the abstract calculation of equivariance. Specification paragraphs [0049-0059] discloses equations to calculate such equivariant mathematically. With regard to (2A), Prong Two : No. The instant claims do not apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception of “receiving image data”, “performing equivariance”, and “performing autonomous operations of the vehicle” (i.e., visual capabilities such as object detections, claims 19-20), and therefore does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The use of an apparatus/processor/controller to receive “image data” at a high level of generality such that said “image data” can be used in the operation of the recited judicial exception (the mental step of “receiving”). Performing detection on such “image data” does not provide for “integration” of the abstract idea into a practical application, as said data do not change the way in which said apparatus operates. There are no specifics on how the data is received from the vehicle. This can be interpreted as “visualization”. Even if this step is by a “controller device for performing equivariance of the image data in the 3D space” that may be, for example, a vehicle. Vehicle performing one or more autonomous operations is well known in the field. The both steps of “performing” are interpreted as a mental step of math formulation because it is using ‘received’ image data to calculate the equivariant. The processor/controller is a generic tool to perform the steps recited in the claims, one can do these steps using a generic computer, as recited. There is nothing in the claim that is recited that is integrally requires a specific processor/controller to perform such steps. These steps in combination with other seem to be generic and a routine to ‘processing’ in the manner it is recited. These steps are considered to be nothing more than mental data of math formulation. There are no steps to define what it is in the claim and thus interpreting it in a broad manner is expected and fair given the lack of specifics here. In conclusion, the claim as a whole does not provide for “integration” of the abstract idea into a practical application. With regard to (2B), the pending claims do not show what is more than a routine in the art presented in the claims, i.e., the additional elements are nothing more than routine and well-known steps. There is no improvement to technology here. There is only a “receiving” and “performing” steps, and it has not been shown that the mental process allows the “technology” to do something that it previously was not able to do. With regard to claims 1-11 and 18-20, similar analysis is applied and therefore does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. These claims are similarly rejected for the same reasons discussed in view of steps recited in claim 17 and not repeated herewith. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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 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. 07-07-aia AIA 07-07 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 – 07-12-aia AIA (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. 07-15-03-aia AIA Claim s 1-2, 7-11, 17 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by US 2025/0131685 to Fidler et al. (hereafter, “Fidler”) . With regard to claim 1 Fidler discloses a vehicle ( vehicle 500, Fig. 5A, 5C, 5D, paragraphs [0020, 0074, 0090, 0092-0113] ), comprising: a processor device for receiving image data of one or more objects having rotations in a three-dimensional (3D) space ( processor 102, paragraph [0026], Fig. 1; rotations in paragraphs [0031, 0035, 0175] ), wherein the 3D space is associated with a surrounding environment for the vehicle ( paragraphs [0032, 0076] ); and a controller device ( controllers 536, paragraphs [0096-0098, 0111-0112] ) for performing equivariance of the image data in the 3D space from the processor device for image analysis and computer vision functions ( equivariant layers 232, equivariant features 234 within engine 124, Fig. 2; paragraph [0033, 0054, 0083-0084, 0089, 0124] ), and for performing one or more autonomous operations in response to the image analysis and the computer vision functions based on the equivariance ( paragraphs [0082, 0092-0113 ]). With regard to claim 2 Fidler discloses wherein the processor device comprises a 3D transformation equivariance component (paragraphs [0051, 0084, 0232-0233]). With regard to claim 7 Fidler discloses wherein the image data comprises image embeddings and camera embeddings (paragraphs [0034, 0069, 0169, 0171-0174]). With regard to claim 8 Fidler discloses wherein the image data is captured by one or more vehicle cameras at multiple viewpoints associated with rotations in the 3D space (Figure 5B; paragraphs [0031, 0035, 0097, 0101-0108]). With regard to claim 9 Fidler discloses wherein the processor device comprises a computer vision component performing one or more computer visual capabilities for the one or more autonomous operations (paragraphs [0082, 0096, 0127, 0130-0136, etc]). With regard to claim 10 Fidler discloses wherein the one or more computer visual capabilities comprise object detection (paragraphs [0135 and 0152]). With regard to claim 11 Fidler discloses wherein the vehicle comprises an autonomous vehicle (Figures 5A-5D, paragraphs [0020, 0074, 0082, 0090, 0092-0135]). With regard to claim 17, claim 17 is rejected same as claim 1 and the arguments similar to that presented above for claim 1 are equally applicable to claim 17, and all of the other limitations similar to claim 1 are not repeated herein, but incorporated by reference. With regard to claim 19, claim 19 is rejected same as claim 9 and the arguments similar to that presented above for claim 9 are equally applicable to claim 19, and all of the other limitations similar to claim 9 are not repeated herein, but incorporated by reference. With regard to claim 20, claim 20 is rejected same as claim 10 and the arguments similar to that presented above for claim 10 are equally applicable to claim 20, and all of the other limitations similar to claim 10 are not repeated herein, but incorporated by reference . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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 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. 07-20-aia AIA 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 of this title, 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. 07-20-02-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2025/0131685 to Fidler et al. (hereafter, “Fidler”) in view of US 2023/0186057 to Musaelian et al. (hereafter, “Musaelian”) . With regard to claim 3, Fidler teaches the vehicle of claims 1 and 2. However, Fidler does not expressly teach wherein the 3D transformation equivariance component comprises spherical harmonics. Musaelian teaches wherein the 3D transformation equivariance component comprises spherical harmonics (paragraph [0071]). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Fidler’s reference to have spherical harmonics of Musaelian’s reference. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to obtain further energy decomposition for the tensor machine learning model, as suggested by Musaelian at paragraph [0071]. Further, one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as described above by known method with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Musaelian with Fidler to obtain the invention as specified in claim 3. With regard to claim 4, Musaelian teaches wherein the spherical harmonics provide equivariance to rotations in the 3D space for input embeddings (paragraph [0071]) . Allowable Subject Matter 12-151-08 AIA 07-43 12-51-08 Claim s 5-6, 12-16, and 18 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 cited art of record fails to teach, disclose or suggest the limitation of “wherein the equivariance of the image data comprises equivariance to simultaneous spatial transformations of input and output”, recited in claim 5; “wherein the 3D transformation equivariance component performs positional encoding with the spherical harmonics for input ray vectors and translation of cameras associated with the image data”, recited in claim 6; “wherein the 3D transformation equivariance component comprises an equivariant cross-attention module for encoding one or more image embeddings and one or more camera embeddings and for outputting encoded information, wherein the encoding comprises positional encoding with spherical harmonics for input ray vectors and translation of cameras associated with the one or more image embeddings and the one or more camera embeddings”, recited in claim 12. Claims 13-16 are either dependent from claim 12 or are intervening claims. Claim 18 corresponds to claim 6. Conclusion 07-96 AIA The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US2024/0144516 discloses computer-implemented method for estimating a pose of an object that includes receiving, at a pose estimation model, image data comprising a plurality of two-dimensional (2D) images of an object. Each 2D image of the plurality of 2D images has a different pose. The pose estimation model aligns a first 2D image of the plurality of 2D images with a second 2D image of the plurality of 2D images based on geometric properties related to the first 2D image and the second 2D image. The pose estimation model estimates a pose of the first 2D image and the second 2D image based on the plurality of 2D images and a loss associated with a common line between the first 2D image and the second 2D image. US2025/0200375 discloses systems and methods for training physics-informed neural network (PINN) surrogate models to model physical problems. The method may comprise coupling, using a processor, one or more convolutional neural networks (CNNs) with a finite element method (FEM). The coupling may comprise calculating, for a finite element mesh comprising a plurality of finite elements, an internal force vector, P, a force vector, F, and a tangent stiffness matrix, K.sub.T, using the FEM. Each finite element may comprise one or more finite element nodes. The coupling may further comprise applying a CNN to the finite element mesh to obtain a solution to a physical problem. The CNN may be trained on a loss function, and the loss function may incorporate the internal force vector, P, and the force vector, F. 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 Monday-Thursday 8AM-6PM, Friday 8AM-12PM. 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, Henok Shiferaw can be reached at 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 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. SHEFALI D. GORADIA Primary Patent Examiner Art Unit 2676 /SHEFALI D GORADIA/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2676 Application/Control Number: 18/652,569 Page 2 Art Unit: 2676 Application/Control Number: 18/652,569 Page 3 Art Unit: 2676 Application/Control Number: 18/652,569 Page 4 Art Unit: 2676 Application/Control Number: 18/652,569 Page 5 Art Unit: 2676 Application/Control Number: 18/652,569 Page 6 Art Unit: 2676 Application/Control Number: 18/652,569 Page 7 Art Unit: 2676 Application/Control Number: 18/652,569 Page 8 Art Unit: 2676 Application/Control Number: 18/652,569 Page 9 Art Unit: 2676 Application/Control Number: 18/652,569 Page 10 Art Unit: 2676 Application/Control Number: 18/652,569 Page 11 Art Unit: 2676 Application/Control Number: 18/652,569 Page 12 Art Unit: 2676 Application/Control Number: 18/652,569 Page 13 Art Unit: 2676
Prosecution Insights