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 .
Status of Claims
This office action is in response to the patent application 18/675,445 originally filed on May 28, 2024. Claims 1-7 are presented for examination. Claim 1 is independent.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statement filed on May 28, 2024 has been considered. An initialed copy of the Form 1449 is enclosed herewith.
Priority
This application is a continuation of PCT/CN2023/128345, filed October 31, 2023.
Specification
The title of the invention contains a spelling error. The word “daynamic” should be corrected to –dynamic–.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-7 are objected to because of the following informalities: claims containing more than one period.
Claim 1, and substantially similar limitations in claims 2-7, are objected to because they contain numerous instances of individual claim limitations and/or clauses terminated by periods within the claims (e.g. “designing a language-guided region-level feature module, QGDR. QGDR consists of…,” “with resolution increasing from small to large. Within this structure…,” “doubling at each successive level. Step 2: Using a dynamic method…,” etc.). These periods should be removed, or substituted with a appropriate punctuation, such as semicolons or commas, as each claim can only have one period. Per MPEP 608.01(m), each claim begins with a capital letter and ends with a period. Periods may not be used elsewhere in the claims except for abbreviations. See Fressola v. Manbeck, 36 USPQ2d 1211 (D.D.C. 1995). Appropriate correction is required. Claims 2-7 are also objected to based on their respective dependencies to claim 1. Claims 5-7 are objected to based on their respective dependencies to claim 4. Claims 6 and 7 are objected to based on their respective dependencies to claim 5. Claim 7 is objected to based on its dependency to claim 6.
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.
Claims 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 1, and substantially similar limitations in claims 3-7, recites the limitation “QGDR.” The limitation is originally introduced earlier in claim 1. As such, the subsequent limitations are either (1) not following antecedent basis (i.e. “the QGDR”); or (2) are intended to be new limitations which ambiguously conflict with the previous limitation of claim 1. Therefore, claims 1 and 3-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. Claims 2-7 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), based on their respective dependencies to claim 1. Claims 5-7 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), based on their respective dependencies to claim 4. Claims 6 and 7 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), based on their respective dependencies to claim 5. Claim 7 is also rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), based on its dependency to claim 6.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “adaptively assign appropriate mask resolutions to each localized object” (emphasis added). When a term of degree is used, there must be some standard for measuring that degree. The specification should provide some standard for measuring that degree or there should be a standard that is recognized in the art for measuring the meaning of the term of degree. Without a standard for measuring, the claim is indefinite because the boundaries cannot be determined. Specifically, the claim is indefinite because the limitation to “adaptively assign appropriate mask resolutions to each localized object” fails to specify a degree of “appropriateness” such that one of ordinary skill in the art can reasonably conclude as to what are the “appropriate mask resolutions” for each localized object, which is necessary to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter in which the Applicant is regarding as his invention. Therefore, claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. Claims 2-7 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), based on their respective dependencies to claim 1. Claims 5-7 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), based on their respective dependencies to claim 4. Claims 6 and 7 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), based on their respective dependencies to claim 5. Claim 7 is also rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), based on its dependency to claim 6.
Claim 1, and substantially similar limitations in claim 4, recites the limitation “the language-guided pixel-level feature module.” The limitation is not previously introduced in claim 1 or 4, respectively. As such, the limitation lacks antecedent basis. Therefore, claims 1 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. Claims 2-7 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), based on their respective dependencies to claim 1. Claims 5-7 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), based on their respective dependencies to claim 4. Claims 6 and 7 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), based on their respective dependencies to claim 5. Claim 7 is also rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), based on its dependency to claim 6.
Claim 1, recites the limitation “the image segmentation decoder.” The limitation is not previously introduced in claim 1. As such, the limitation lacks antecedent basis. Therefore, claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. Claims 2-7 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), based on their respective dependencies to claim 1. Claims 5-7 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), based on their respective dependencies to claim 4. Claims 6 and 7 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), based on their respective dependencies to claim 5. Claim 7 is also rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), based on its dependency to claim 6.
Claim 1, and substantially similar limitations in claim 7, recites the limitation “the textual answers.” The limitation is not previously introduced in claims 1, 4, 5, 6, or 7, respectively. As such, the limitation lacks antecedent basis. Therefore, claims 1 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. Claims 2-7 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), based on their respective dependencies to claim 1. Claims 5-7 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), based on their respective dependencies to claim 4. Claims 6 and 7 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), based on their respective dependencies to claim 5. Claim 7 is also rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), based on its dependency to claim 6.
Claim 1, recites the limitation “the text decoder.” The limitation is not previously introduced in claim 1. As such, the limitation lacks antecedent basis. Therefore, claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. Claims 2-7 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), based on their respective dependencies to claim 1. Claims 5-7 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), based on their respective dependencies to claim 4. Claims 6 and 7 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), based on their respective dependencies to claim 5. Claim 7 is also rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), based on its dependency to claim 6.
Claim 1, recites the limitation “the ground visual question-answering model.” The limitation is not previously introduced in claim 1. As such, the limitation lacks antecedent basis. Therefore, claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. Claims 2-7 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), based on their respective dependencies to claim 1. Claims 5-7 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), based on their respective dependencies to claim 4. Claims 6 and 7 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), based on their respective dependencies to claim 5. Claim 7 is also rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), based on its dependency to claim 6.
Claim 1, and substantially similar limitations in claim 7, recites the limitation “the model.” The limitation is not previously introduced in claims 1, 4, 5, 6, or 7, respectively. As such, the limitation lacks antecedent basis. Therefore, claims 1 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. Claims 2-7 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), based on their respective dependencies to claim 1. Claims 5-7 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), based on their respective dependencies to claim 4. Claims 6 and 7 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), based on their respective dependencies to claim 5. Claim 7 is also rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), based on its dependency to claim 6.
Claim 1, recites the limitation “the required images.” The limitation is not previously introduced in claim 1. As such, the limitation lacks antecedent basis. Therefore, claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. Claims 2-7 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), based on their respective dependencies to claim 1. Claims 5-7 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), based on their respective dependencies to claim 4. Claims 6 and 7 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), based on their respective dependencies to claim 5. Claim 7 is also rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), based on its dependency to claim 6.
Claim 1, recites the limitation “the trained ground visual question-answering model.” The limitation is not previously introduced in claim 1. As such, the limitation lacks antecedent basis. Therefore, claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. Claims 2-7 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), based on their respective dependencies to claim 1. Claims 5-7 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), based on their respective dependencies to claim 4. Claims 6 and 7 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), based on their respective dependencies to claim 5. Claim 7 is also rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), based on its dependency to claim 6.
Claim 1, recites the limitation “the corresponding ground answers.” The limitation is not previously introduced in claim 1. As such, the limitation lacks antecedent basis. Therefore, claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. Claims 2-7 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), based on their respective dependencies to claim 1. Claims 5-7 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), based on their respective dependencies to claim 4. Claims 6 and 7 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), based on their respective dependencies to claim 5. Claim 7 is also rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), based on its dependency to claim 6.
Claim 2, and substantially similar limitations in claims 3-7, recites the limitation “dynamic dual-level visual information fusion.” The limitation is originally introduced earlier in claim 1. As such, the subsequent limitations are either (1) not following antecedent basis (i.e. “the dynamic dual-level visual information fusion”); or (2) are intended to be new limitations which ambiguously conflict with the previous limitation of claim 1. Therefore, claims 2-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. Claims 5-7 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), based on their respective dependencies to claim 4. Claims 6 and 7 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), based on their respective dependencies to claim 5. Claim 7 is also rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), based on its dependency to claim 6.
Claim 2, recites the limitation “the region level.” The limitation is not previously introduced in claim 1 or claim 2. As such, the limitation lacks antecedent basis. Therefore, claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 2, recites the limitation “the Swin Transformer.” The limitation is not previously introduced in claim 1 or claim 2. As such, the limitation lacks antecedent basis. Therefore, claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 2, and substantially similar limitations in claim 7, recites the limitation “the question features.” The limitation is not previously introduced in claims 1, 4, 5, 6, or 7, respectively. As such, the limitation lacks antecedent basis. Therefore, claims 1 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 2, recites the limitation “the cross-modal attention.” The limitation is not previously introduced in claim 1 or claim 2. As such, the limitation lacks antecedent basis. Therefore, claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 2, recites the limitation “the transpose operation.” The limitation is not previously introduced in claim 1 or claim 2. As such, the limitation lacks antecedent basis. Therefore, claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 2, and substantially similar limitations in claims 3 and 4, recites the limitation “the specific formula.” The limitation is not previously introduced in any of claims 1-4. As such, the limitation lacks antecedent basis. Therefore, claims 2-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. Claims 5-7 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), based on their respective dependencies to claim 4. Claims 6 and 7 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), based on their respective dependencies to claim 5. Claim 7 is also rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), based on its dependency to claim 6.
Claim 2, recites the limitation “the length.” The limitation is not previously introduced in claim 1 or claim 2. As such, the limitation lacks antecedent basis. Therefore, claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 2, recites the limitation “the vector.” The limitation is not previously introduced in claim 1 or claim 2. As such, the limitation lacks antecedent basis. Therefore, claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 2, recites the limitation “the obtained Qi.” The limitation is not previously introduced in claim 1 or claim 2. As such, the limitation lacks antecedent basis. Therefore, claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 2, recites the limitation “the attention module SE-block.” The limitation is not previously introduced in claim 1 or claim 2. As such, the limitation lacks antecedent basis. Therefore, claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 2, and substantially similar limitations in claims 3-5, recites the limitation “the equation.” The limitation is not previously introduced in any of claims 1, 2, 4, or 5. As such, the limitation lacks antecedent basis. Therefore, claims 2-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. Claims 6 and 7 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), based on their respective dependencies to claim 5. Claim 7 is also rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), based on its dependency to claim 6.
Claim 2, recites the limitation “the Flatten operation.” The limitation is not previously introduced in claim 1 or claim 2. As such, the limitation lacks antecedent basis. Therefore, claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 2, recites the limitation “the operation.” The limitation is not previously introduced in claim 1 or claim 2. As such, the limitation lacks antecedent basis. Therefore, claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 2, recites the limitation “the SE-block module.” The limitation is not previously introduced in claim 1 or claim 2. As such, the limitation lacks antecedent basis. Therefore, claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 2, recites the limitation “the weights.” The limitation is not previously introduced in claim 1 or claim 2. As such, the limitation lacks antecedent basis. Therefore, claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 2, recites the limitation “the operation F1.” The limitation is not previously introduced in claim 1 or claim 2. As such, the limitation lacks antecedent basis. Therefore, claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 2, recites the limitation “the sigmoid function.” The limitation is not previously introduced in claim 1 or claim 2. As such, the limitation lacks antecedent basis. Therefore, claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 2, recites the limitation “the ReLU function.” The limitation is not previously introduced in claim 1 or claim 2. As such, the limitation lacks antecedent basis. Therefore, claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 2, recites the limitation “the dimensions.” The limitation is not previously introduced in claim 1 or claim 2. As such, the limitation lacks antecedent basis. Therefore, claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 2, recites the limitation “the weight matrix.” The limitation is not previously introduced in claim 1 or claim 2. As such, the limitation lacks antecedent basis. Therefore, claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 3 recites the limitation “dynamically adapting to allocate appropriately sized masks for each localized object” (emphasis added). When a term of degree is used, there must be some standard for measuring that degree. The specification should provide some standard for measuring that degree or there should be a standard that is recognized in the art for measuring the meaning of the term of degree. Without a standard for measuring, the claim is indefinite because the boundaries cannot be determined. Specifically, the claim is indefinite because the limitation to “dynamically adapting to allocate appropriately sized masks for each localized object” fails to specify a degree of “appropriateness” such that one of ordinary skill in the art can reasonably conclude as to what are the masks are “appropriately sized” for each localized object, which is necessary to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter in which the Applicant is regarding as his invention. Therefore, claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 3, recites the limitation “the optimal mask resolution.” The limitation is not previously introduced in claim 1 or claim 3. As such, the limitation lacks antecedent basis. Therefore, claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 3, recites the limitation “the probability.” The limitation is not previously introduced in claim 1 or claim 3. As such, the limitation lacks antecedent basis. Therefore, claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 3, recites the limitation “the corresponding candidate resolution.” The limitation is not previously introduced in claim 1 or claim 3. As such, the limitation lacks antecedent basis. Therefore, claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 3, recites the limitation “Gumbel-Softmax.” The limitation is originally introduced earlier in claim 3. As such, the subsequent limitations are either (1) not following antecedent basis (i.e. “the Gumbel-Softmax”); or (2) are intended to be new limitations which ambiguously conflict with the previous limitation of claim 3. Therefore, claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 3, recites the limitation “the Gumbel distribution.” The limitation is not previously introduced in claim 1 or claim 3. As such, the limitation lacks antecedent basis. Therefore, claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 4, recites the limitation “the modal information.” The limitation is not previously introduced in claim 1 or claim 4. As such, the limitation lacks antecedent basis. Therefore, claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. Claims 5-7 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), based on their respective dependencies to claim 4. Claims 6 and 7 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), based on their respective dependencies to claim 5. Claim 7 is also rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), based on its dependency to claim 6.
Claim 4, recites the limitation “the outputs.” The limitation is not previously introduced in claim 1 or claim 4. As such, the limitation lacks antecedent basis. Therefore, claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. Claims 5-7 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), based on their respective dependencies to claim 4. Claims 6 and 7 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), based on their respective dependencies to claim 5. Claim 7 is also rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), based on its dependency to claim 6.
Claim 4, recites the limitation “the concatenated features.” The limitation is not previously introduced in claim 1 or claim 4. As such, the limitation lacks antecedent basis. Therefore, claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. Claims 5-7 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), based on their respective dependencies to claim 4. Claims 6 and 7 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), based on their respective dependencies to claim 5. Claim 7 is also rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), based on its dependency to claim 6.
Claim 4, recites the limitation “the offset mapping.” The limitation is not previously introduced in claim 1 or claim 4. As such, the limitation lacks antecedent basis. Therefore, claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. Claims 5-7 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), based on their respective dependencies to claim 4. Claims 6 and 7 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), based on their respective dependencies to claim 5. Claim 7 is also rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), based on its dependency to claim 6.
Claim 4, recites the limitation “the learned offset o.” The limitation is not previously introduced in claim 1 or claim 4. As such, the limitation lacks antecedent basis. Therefore, claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. Claims 5-7 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), based on their respective dependencies to claim 4. Claims 6 and 7 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), based on their respective dependencies to claim 5. Claim 7 is also rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), based on its dependency to claim 6.
Claim 4, recites the limitation “The position.” The limitation is not previously introduced in claim 1 or claim 4. As such, the limitation lacks antecedent basis. Therefore, claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. Claims 5-7 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), based on their respective dependencies to claim 4. Claims 6 and 7 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), based on their respective dependencies to claim 5. Claim 7 is also rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), based on its dependency to claim 6.
Claim 4, recites the limitation “the output Fi.” The limitation is not previously introduced in claim 1 or claim 4. As such, the limitation lacks antecedent basis. Therefore, claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. Claims 5-7 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), based on their respective dependencies to claim 4. Claims 6 and 7 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), based on their respective dependencies to claim 5. Claim 7 is also rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), based on its dependency to claim 6.
Claim 4, recites the limitation “the output Pi.” The limitation is not previously introduced in claim 1 or claim 4. As such, the limitation lacks antecedent basis. Therefore, claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. Claims 5-7 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), based on their respective dependencies to claim 4. Claims 6 and 7 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), based on their respective dependencies to claim 5. Claim 7 is also rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), based on its dependency to claim 6.
Claim 4, and substantially similar limitations in claim 7, recites the limitation “PWAM.” The limitation is originally introduced earlier in claim 1. As such, the subsequent limitations are either (1) not following antecedent basis (i.e. “the PWAM”); or (2) are intended to be new limitations which ambiguously conflict with the previous limitation of claim 1. Therefore, claims 4 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. Claims 5-7 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), based on their respective dependencies to claim 4. Claims 6 and 7 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), based on their respective dependencies to claim 5. Claim 7 is also rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), based on its dependency to claim 6.
Claim 4, recites the limitation “the Deconv operation.” The limitation is not previously introduced in claim 1 or claim 4. As such, the limitation lacks antecedent basis. Therefore, claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. Claims 5-7 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), based on their respective dependencies to claim 4. Claims 6 and 7 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), based on their respective dependencies to claim 5. Claim 7 is also rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), based on its dependency to claim 6.
Claim 4, recites the limitation “the deform conv1 operation.” The limitation is not previously introduced in claim 1 or claim 4. As such, the limitation lacks antecedent basis. Therefore, claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. Claims 5-7 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), based on their respective dependencies to claim 4. Claims 6 and 7 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), based on their respective dependencies to claim 5. Claim 7 is also rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), based on its dependency to claim 6.
Claim 4, recites the limitation “the concatenation operation.” The limitation is not previously introduced in claim 1 or claim 4. As such, the limitation lacks antecedent basis. Therefore, claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. Claims 5-7 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), based on their respective dependencies to claim 4. Claims 6 and 7 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), based on their respective dependencies to claim 5. Claim 7 is also rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), based on its dependency to claim 6.
Claim 4, recites the limitation “the deformable convolution operation.” The limitation is not previously introduced in claim 1 or claim 4. As such, the limitation lacks antecedent basis. Therefore, claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. Claims 5-7 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), based on their respective dependencies to claim 4. Claims 6 and 7 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), based on their respective dependencies to claim 5. Claim 7 is also rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), based on its dependency to claim 6.
Claim 4, recites the limitation “the Swin Transformer decoder.” The limitation is not previously introduced in claim 1 or claim 4. As such, the limitation lacks antecedent basis. Therefore, claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. Claims 5-7 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), based on their respective dependencies to claim 4. Claims 6 and 7 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), based on their respective dependencies to claim 5. Claim 7 is also rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), based on its dependency to claim 6.
Claim 4, recites the limitation “the CondConv operation.” The limitation is not previously introduced in claim 1 or claim 4. As such, the limitation lacks antecedent basis. Therefore, claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. Claims 5-7 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), based on their respective dependencies to claim 4. Claims 6 and 7 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), based on their respective dependencies to claim 5. Claim 7 is also rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), based on its dependency to claim 6.
Claim 5, recites the limitation “the specific mask loss.” The limitation is not previously introduced in any of claims 1, 4, or 5. As such, the limitation lacks antecedent basis. Therefore, claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. Claims 6 and 7 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), based on their respective dependencies to claim 5. Claim 7 is also rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), based on its dependency to claim 6.
Claim 5, recites the limitation “the fusion.” The limitation is not previously introduced in any of claims 1, 4, or 5. As such, the limitation lacks antecedent basis. Therefore, claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. Claims 6 and 7 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), based on their respective dependencies to claim 5. Claim 7 is also rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), based on its dependency to claim 6.
Claim 5, recites the limitation “the FPA module.” The limitation is not previously introduced in any of claims 1, 4, or 5. As such, the limitation lacks antecedent basis. Therefore, claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. Claims 6 and 7 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), based on their respective dependencies to claim 5. Claim 7 is also rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), based on its dependency to claim 6.
Claim 5, recites the limitation “the decoding end.” The limitation is not previously introduced in any of claims 1, 4, or 5. As such, the limitation lacks antecedent basis. Therefore, claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. Claims 6 and 7 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), based on their respective dependencies to claim 5. Claim 7 is also rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), based on its dependency to claim 6.
Claim 5, recites the limitation “the mask loss function.” The limitation is not previously introduced in any of claims 1, 4, or 5. As such, the limitation lacks antecedent basis. Therefore, claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. Claims 6 and 7 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), based on their respective dependencies to claim 5. Claim 7 is also rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), based on its dependency to claim 6.
Claim 5, recites the limitation “the k -th predicted ground answer mask.” The limitation is not previously introduced in any of claims 1, 4, or 5. As such, the limitation lacks antecedent basis. Therefore, claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. Claims 6 and 7 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), based on their respective dependencies to claim 5. Claim 7 is also rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), based on its dependency to claim 6.
Claim 5, recites the limitation “the k -th mask resolution.” The limitation is not previously introduced in any of claims 1, 4, or 5. As such, the limitation lacks antecedent basis. Therefore, claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. Claims 6 and 7 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), based on their respective dependencies to claim 5. Claim 7 is also rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), based on its dependency to claim 6.
Claim 5, recites the limitation “the output resolution.” The limitation is not previously introduced in any of claims 1, 4, or 5. As such, the limitation lacks antecedent basis. Therefore, claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. Claims 6 and 7 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), based on their respective dependencies to claim 5. Claim 7 is also rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), based on its dependency to claim 6.
Claim 5, recites the limitation “the binary cross-entropy loss.” The limitation is not previously introduced in any of claims 1, 4, or 5. As such, the limitation lacks antecedent basis. Therefore, claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. Claims 6 and 7 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), based on their respective dependencies to claim 5. Claim 7 is also rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), based on its dependency to claim 6.
Claim 6, recites the limitation “the specific edge loss.” The limitation is not previously introduced in any of claims 1, 4, 5, or 6. As such, the limitation lacks antecedent basis. Therefore, claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. Claim 7 is also rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), based on its dependency to claim 6.
Claim 6, recites the limitation “the quality.” The limitation is not previously introduced in any of claims 1, 4, 5, or 6. As such, the limitation lacks antecedent basis. Therefore, claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. Claim 7 is also rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), based on its dependency to claim 6.
Claim 6, recites the limitation “the output F = [f1,…,fk].” The limitation is not previously introduced in any of claims 1, 4, 5, or 6. As such, the limitation lacks antecedent basis. Therefore, claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. Claim 7 is also rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), based on its dependency to claim 6.
Claim 6 recites the limitation “Edge loss.” The limitation is originally introduced in claim 1. As such, the subsequent limitations are either (1) not following antecedent basis (i.e. “[[E]]the edge loss”); or (2) are intended to be new limitations which ambiguously conflict with the previous limitation of claim 1. Therefore, claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. Claim 7 is also rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), based on its dependency to claim 6.
Claim 6, recites the limitation “the ground truth answer edges.” The limitation is not previously introduced in any of claims 1, 4, 5, or 6. As such, the limitation lacks antecedent basis. Therefore, claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. Claim 7 is also rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), based on its dependency to claim 6.
Claim 6, recites the limitation “the Laplacian operator.” The limitation is not previously introduced in any of claims 1, 4, 5, or 6. As such, the limitation lacks antecedent basis. Therefore, claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. Claim 7 is also rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), based on its dependency to claim 6.
Claim 6, recites the limitation “the real ground answer mask
m
^
i.” The limitation is not previously introduced in any of claims 1, 4, 5, or 6. As such, the limitation lacks antecedent basis. Therefore, claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. Claim 7 is also rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), based on its dependency to claim 6.
Claim 6, recites the limitation “thresholding it to convert it” (emphasis added). It is unclear to what “it” refers. Therefore, claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. Claim 7 is also rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), based on its dependency to claim 6.
Claim 7, recites the limitation “the specific budget constraint.” The limitation is not previously introduced in any of claims 1, 4, 5, 6, or 7. As such, the limitation lacks antecedent basis. Therefore, claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 7, recites the limitation “the corresponding computational cost.” The limitation is not previously introduced in any of claims 1, 4, 5, 6, or 7. As such, the limitation lacks antecedent basis. Therefore, claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 7, recites the limitation “the selected mask resolution.” The limitation is not previously introduced in any of claims 1, 4, 5, 6, or 7. As such, the limitation lacks antecedent basis. Therefore, claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 7, recites the limitation “the target deviation Ct.” The limitation is not previously introduced in any of claims 1, 4, 5, 6, or 7. As such, the limitation lacks antecedent basis. Therefore, claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 7, recites the limitation “the computation.” The limitation is not previously introduced in any of claims 1, 4, 5, 6, or 7. As such, the limitation lacks antecedent basis. Therefore, claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 7, recites the limitation “the current batch data.” The limitation is not previously introduced in any of claims 1, 4, 5, 6, or 7. As such, the limitation lacks antecedent basis. Therefore, claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 7, recites the limitation “The overall objective function.” The limitation is not previously introduced in any of claims 1, 4, 5, 6, or 7. As such, the limitation lacks antecedent basis. Therefore, claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 7, recites the limitation “the ground answer batch.” The limitation is not previously introduced in any of claims 1, 4, 5, 6, or 7. As such, the limitation lacks antecedent basis. Therefore, claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 7, recites the limitation “the Softmax function.” The limitation is not previously introduced in any of claims 1, 4, 5, 6, or 7. As such, the limitation lacks antecedent basis. Therefore, claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 7, recites the limitation “the binary cross-entropy loss function.” The limitation is not previously introduced in any of claims 1, 4, 5, 6, or 7. As such, the limitation lacks antecedent basis. Therefore, claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
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 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claim 1 is directed to “a ground visual question-answering method” (i.e. a process), hence the claims are directed to one of the four statutory categories (i.e. process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter). In other words, Step 1 of the subject-matter eligibility analysis is “Yes.”
However, the claims are drawn to an abstract idea of “ground visual question-answering,” either in the form of “certain methods of organizing human activity,” in terms of managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching and following rules or instructions), or reasonably in the form of “mental processes,” in terms of processes that can be performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement or opinion) which are “performed on a computer” (per MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C) “A Claim That Requires a Computer May Still Recite a Mental Process”).
Furthermore, the Applicant’s method steps and mathematical models could reasonably be practiced as abstract ideas in the form of “mathematical concepts” such as mathematical algorithms, mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas, and calculations.
These limitations simply describe a process of data gathering and manipulation, which is partially analogous to “collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection analysis” (i.e. Electric Power Group, LLC, v. Alstom, 830 F.3d 1350, 119 U.S.P.Q.2d 1739 (Fed. Cir. 2016)). Another relevant example would be: “Organizing and manipulating information through mathematical correlations” (i.e. Digitech Image Techs., LLC v Electronics for Imaging, Inc., 758 F.3d 1344, 111 U.S.P.Q.2d 1717 (Fed. Cir. 2014)).
Regardless, the claims are reasonably understood as “certain methods of organizing human activity,” “mental processes,” or “mathematical concepts” which require the following limitations:
“a ground visual question-answering method based on dynamic dual-level visual information fusion, characterized by the following steps.
Step 1: Using a question-guided dynamic multi-scale approach for locating and segmenting ground answers, the method involves designing a language-guided region-level feature module, QGDR. QGDR consists of cross-attention and spatial attention modules, ultimately yielding region-level mask prediction features denoted as Fi ∈ Ft, Fs, Fm, Fl, with resolution increasing from small to large. Within this structure, Ft, Fs, Fm, Fl represent four classes of region features, with spatial resolution doubling at each successive level.
Step 2: Using a dynamic method to adaptively assign appropriate mask resolutions to each localized object while budgeting resource consumption; QGDR outputs four different switch states corresponding to four different mask resolutions, namely [14×14, 28×28, 56×56, 112×112].
Step 3: Design a cross-modal multi-scale fusion module, FPA, to aggregate features from the language-guided pixel-level feature module, PWAM, and the language-guided region-level feature module, QGDR, at multiple scales.
Step 4: Between each level of the language-guided pixel-level feature module (PWAM) and the language-guided region-level feature module (QGDR), construct information flows to perform hierarchical decoding. Ultimately, the ground answers are obtained by the image segmentation decoder, while the textual answers are obtained by the text decoder. The ground visual question-answering model, composed of dual-level feature branches, is trained using a combination of mask loss, edge loss, budget constraints, and text loss.
Step 5: Load the model from step 4, input the required images along with their corresponding questions into the trained ground visual question-answering model, and obtain the corresponding ground answers and textual answers.”
Since these limitations simply describe a process of data gathering and manipulation, which is partially analogous to “collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection analysis,” these limitations are akin to an abstract idea which has been identified among non-limiting examples to be an abstract idea. In other words, Step 2A, Prong 1 of the subject-matter eligibility analysis is “Yes.”
Furthermore, the claims do not include additional elements that either alone or in combination are sufficient to claim a practical application. In other words, the claimed “ground visual question-answering,” is not providing a practical application, thus Step 2A, Prong 2 of the subject-matter eligibility analysis is “No.”
Likewise, the claims do not include additional elements that either alone or in combination are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As such, the claimed limitations are reasonably understood as not providing anything significantly more. Therefore, Step 2B, of the subject-matter eligibility analysis is “No.”
In addition, dependent claims 2-7 do not provide a practical application and are insufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As such, dependent claims 2-7 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101, based on their respective dependencies to independent claim 1.
Therefore, claims 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Chen et al. (US 10,635,927) Systems for performing semantic segmentation and methods thereof
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Stephen Alvesteffer whose telephone number is (571)272-8680. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00-6:00.
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, Peter Vasat can be reached at 571-270-7625. 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.
/SA/Examiner, Art Unit 3715
/PETER S VASAT/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3715