DETAILED ACTION
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Objections
In claim 1, line 15 should recite improve, not improved.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-11 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-11 of copending Application No. 18/547,671 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims at issue are encompassed in the claims of the reference application. In claim 1, the structural steps in both the instant application and the reference application are identical. The differences between claim 1 of the instant application and claim 1 of the reference application are the type of input images (cholangioscopy vs pancreatic EUS), the type of lesions (biliary strictures of neoplastic etiology vs pancreatic cystic lesions) and the type of human expert (cholangioscopy specialist vs EUS specialist). The only difference between the applications is the change of anatomical targets and image modality; the training and structure between the two applications are identical.
Please see the chart below which shows that dependent claims 2-11 of the instant application are identical to claims 2-11 of the reference application.
Instant Application Reference Application
2. The method of claim 1, wherein the classification network architecture comprises at least two blocks, each having a Dense layer followed by a Dropout layer.
2. The method of claim 1, wherein the classification network architecture comprises at least two blocks, each having a Dense layer followed by a Dropout layer.
3. The method of claim 1, wherein the last block of the classification component includes a BatchNormalization layer followed by a Dense layer where the depth size is equal to the number of lesions type one desires to classify.
3. The method of claims 1 and 2, wherein the last block of the classification component includes a BatchNormalization layer, followed by a Dense layer where the depth size is equal to the number of lesions type one desires to classify.
4. The method of claim 1, wherein the set of pre-trained neural networks is the best performing among the following: VGG16, IncpetionV3, Xception, EfficientNetB5, EfficientNetB7, Resnet50 and Resnet125.
4. The method of claim 1, wherein the set of pre-trained neural networks is the best performing among the following:
VGG16, InceptionV3, Xception, EfficientNetB5, EfficientNetB7, Resnet50 and Resnet125.
5. The method of claim 1, wherein the best performing combination is chosen based on the overall accuracy and on the f1-metrics.
5. The method of claims 1 and 4, wherein the best performing combination is chosen based on the overall accuracy and on the f1-metrics.
6. The method of claim 1, wherein the training of the best performing combination comprises two to four dense layers in sequence, starting with 4096 and decreasing in half up to 512.
6. The method of claims 1 and 4, wherein the training of the best performing combination comprises two to four dense layers in sequence, starting with 4096 and decreasing in half up to 512.
7. The method of claim 1, wherein between the final two layers of the best performing combination there is a dropout layer of 0.1 drop rate.
7. The method of claims 1, 4 and 6, wherein between the final two layers of the best performing combination there is a dropout layer of 0.1 drop rate.
8. The method of claim 1, wherein the training of the samples includes a ratio of training-to-validation of 10%-90%.
8. The method of claim 1, wherein the training of the subset of images includes a ratio of training-to-validation of 10%-90%.
9. The method of claim 1, wherein the third-party validation is done by user-input.
9. The method of claim 1, wherein the third-party validation is done by user-input.
10. The method of claim 1, wherein the training dataset includes images in the storage component that were predicted sequentially performing the steps of such method.
10. The method of claims 1 and 9, wherein the training dataset includes images in the storage component that were predicted sequentially performing the steps of such method.
11. A portable endoscopic device comprising instructions which, when executed by a processor, cause the computer to carry out the steps of the method of claim 1.
11. A portable endoscopic device comprising instructions which, when executed by a processor, cause the computer to carry out the steps of the method of claims 1-10.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the architecture" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. A previous recitation for architecture cannot be found in claim 1. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the scores" in line 15. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. A previous recitation for score(s) cannot be found in claim 1. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the f1-metric" in line 20. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. A previous recitation for f1-metric cannot be found in claim 1. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 1 recites “-pre-trains (8000) of each of the chosen subsets with one of a plurality of combinations of image feature extraction component, followed by a subsequent classification neural network component for pixel classification as cystic lesions wherein said pre-training; …” The limitation is incomplete since there is no object after pre-training. Is a neural network being pre-trained from the combinations? This step is unclear to the Examiner. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 1 recites “early stops when the scores do not improved over a given number of epochs, namely three;…”. It is not clear to the Examiner what the scores are referring to. Are the scores related to f1-metrics? Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 1 recites “another networks combination” in lines 18-19. This is unclear to the Examiner. Should this recite “another combination of networks” instead? Appropriate correction is required.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BOBBAK SAFAIPOUR whose telephone number is (571)270-1092. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:00am - 5:00pm.
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, Stephen Koziol can be reached at (408) 918-7630. 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.
/BOBBAK SAFAIPOUR/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2665