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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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.
Claims 1-2, 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN113920066A hereinafter, “He” in view of US20220094847A1, hereinafter, “Yang”.
Regarding claims 1 and 9, He discloses the following:
A detection method/system of power equipment based on a multispectral image (page 2, excerpt below),
PNG
media_image1.png
60
868
media_image1.png
Greyscale
comprising at least the following steps:
step S10: obtaining an image of power equipment to be detected, wherein the image is one of an infrared image, an ultraviolet image, and a visible image (page 2, excerpt below);
PNG
media_image2.png
364
870
media_image2.png
Greyscale
step S11: inputting the image into a pre-trained pixel-based power equipment detection model for detection, and performing classified prediction on pixels in the image to obtain a predicted result, wherein the power equipment detection model comprises at least a trunk feature extraction unit, a feature integration processing unit, an attention adaptive processing unit, and a prediction and conversion unit (page 2, excerpt below; Note: YOLOV3 inherently comprises trunk feature extraction, feature integration processing, and prediction/conversion-details of which can be had in cited prior arts; the excerpt also discloses decoupling attention module for attention adaptive processing);
PNG
media_image3.png
182
850
media_image3.png
Greyscale
See also (page 6, excerpt below)
PNG
media_image4.png
196
868
media_image4.png
Greyscale
and step S12: outputting a predicted image based on the predicted result wherein the predicted image is power equipment image
Yang suggests foreground/background separation as well as AI algorithm for object detection such as YOLO (Pars. 0043, 9977, excerpts below).
PNG
media_image5.png
762
732
media_image5.png
Greyscale
At the time of effective filing of the present invention, it would have been obvious to one skill in the art to incorporate the teaching of Yang into He for object detection enhancement of objects within ROI images especially in spectrum outside of visible range.
Regarding claim 2, which is a further elaboration of step S11 of claim 1, and recites the detection method according to claim 1, wherein step S11 further comprises: step S110: converting the image into a predetermined size, and extracting a predetermined number of classes of preliminary effective features in the image by using the trunk feature extraction unit; step S111: upsampling the predetermined number of classes of preliminary effective features, and performing feature integration to obtain an integrated-feature layer; step S112: processing the integrated-feature layer by using the attention adaptive processing unit to obtain a processed adaptive integrated-feature layer; step S113: predicting the processed adaptive integrated-feature layer to obtain a result of classified prediction of the pixels in the image; and step S114: converting, based on the result of classified prediction of the pixels, gray levels of background pixels of the pixels into a predetermined value.
As noted in claim 1, He in the combination inherently teaches steps S110-S114 via the YOLOV3 architecture (details of which could be had in cited prior arts). As also noted in claim 1, He does not teach background removal and thus, the further limitation of “converting, based on the result of classified prediction of the pixels, gray levels of background pixels of the pixels into a predetermined value”. However, Yang suggest this could be done as noted in claim 1 and additionally, Yang suggests converting grayscale images (pixels) into “artificial color” (predetermined value) of known/unknown objects in images (par. 0030, excerpt below).
PNG
media_image6.png
142
734
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-8, 10, 11-12 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 closest prior arts are He and Yang in combination as outlined in the rejection of claims 1, 2 and 9 above. However, neither He nor Yang alone, or in combination, further substantiates the limitations recited in claim 3:
PNG
media_image7.png
628
774
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Claims 4-8, 11-12 depend on claim 3 dependency chain.
Claim 10 is consistent with claim 3.
Claim Interpretation
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.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
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: “units” in claims 9-10. The modifiers of these recited “units” are non-structural modifiers.
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.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VU LE whose telephone number is (571)272-7332. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00 - 17:00.
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.
Supervisor, Vu Le can be reached at 2-7332. 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.
/VU LE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2668