DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-7 are pending in the Instant Application.
Claims 1-7 are rejected (Non-Final Rejection).
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 .
Priority
The Instant Application, filed 03/18/2024, is a National Stage entry of PCT/JP2021/037108, International Filing Date 10/07/2021. Thus, the earliest effective filing date is 10/07/2021 for what is recited therein.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 03/18/2024 was considered by the examiner.
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 an abstract idea without significantly more. Below is the latest subject matter eligibility test for products and processes.
The Statutory Categories
Step 1: Claims 1 recites “A model training apparatus…” and thus is a machine. Claim 6 recites “A model training method ..” and is thus a process. Finally, Claim 7 recites, “A non-transitory computer readable medium storing a program…” which is a product. Therefore, the claims are all one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One:
Claims 1, 6 and 7 recite a abstract idea to “calculate… the number of Feature Pyramid Network blocks required to detect an object,” and to “estimate a parameter value. ” “Calculating” and “estimating” both fall in the mathematical concept grouping of abstract idea. Thus, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two: The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claims recites the additional elements such as “a memory,” and “at least one processor,” both used as generic computer components. The claim also recites “train[ing] the CNN model by using the estimated parameter value,” which is understood to be well-understood, routine and conventional activity in the specificity recited in the claim. These additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. (see MPEP 2106.05(f))
Step 2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Therefore, claims 1, 6 and 7 recite an abstract idea without additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more.
As per claim 2, claim 2 recites determining if objects are detected by invalidating one of the FPN blocks, and further calculating the number of FPN blocks. These additional limitations merely perform provide analysis regarding the mathematical concept or can be considered a mental process of determining which items to count, both of which are still an abstract idea.
As per claim 3, claim 3 cites calculating a distribution to perform the estimate, which is a mathematical concept, and thus further recites the abstract idea.
As per claim 4, claim 4 escribes calculating a probability that objects are detected by the number of FPN blocks, another mathematical concept.
As per claim 5, claim 5 recites that the CNN employes MLFPN blocks, which merely identifies the computer environment the mathematical concept is performed. While the claim limits itself to a technological environment, it still does not intergrade the judicial exception into practice application or provide significantly more.
Thus, claims 1-7 are rejected under 35 USC 101 as being directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Allowable Subject Matter
Examiner notes that after search and consideration there is no prior art rejection at this time.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KANNAN SHANMUGASUNDARAM whose telephone number is (571)270-7763. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00 AM -6:00 PM.
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, Charles Rones can be reached at (571) 272-4085. 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.
/KANNAN SHANMUGASUNDARAM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2168
Prosecution Insights