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 § 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, 10-12, and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea) without integration into a practical application or recitation of significantly more.
In the analysis below claim 1 is directed to one of the four statutory categories of eligible subject matter; thus, the claims pass Step 1 of the Subject Matter Eligibility Test (See flowchart in MPEP 2106).
Step 2A, prong 1: Yes
The independent claims are directed to
a localization sub-network taking an image as input and outputting one or more bounding boxes enclosing one or more objects detected in the image;
and one or more downstream modules using the output of the localization sub-network; wherein the localization sub-network outputs complex polygonal bounding boxes defined by a center point and multiple pairs of coordinates defining vertices of the bounding boxes as offsets from the center point.
When viewed under the broadest most reasonable interpretation, the instant claims are directed to Judicial Exception – an abstract idea belong to the group of mental process. Particularly, steps a and b can be performed mentally. For example a person can receive an image and looking at it decipher in their mind where the object is and with a pencil draw a bounding box around the object and use the information picked up from the bounding box for further mental operations. Further the human could decide the center point of the object and the offsets to the vertices of the bounding box.
Also, the following limitation: "one or more downstream modules using the output of the localization sub- network; wherein the localization sub- network outputs complex polygonal bounding boxes defined by a center point and multiple pairs of coordinates defining vertices of the bounding boxes as offsets from the center point " does not effect a transformation or a reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing / adds a specific limitation(s) other than what is well-understood, routine and conventional in the field, or adding unconventional steps that confine the claim to a particular useful application and providing improvements to the technical field of object detection through deep learning, which recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application and amounting significant more. NOTE: to qualify as "significantly more" a claim with a judicial exception must include either: Improvements to another technology or technical field; Improvements to the functioning of the computer itself; Applying the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine; Effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; Adding a specific limitation other than what is well-understood, routine and conventional in the field, or adding unconventional steps that confine the claim to a particular useful application; or Other meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment.
Additional elements
There are no additional elements in the claim.
Step 2A, prong 2: No
The above-identified additional elements do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application as there are no additional elements.
Step 2B: No
The pending claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation, and mere implementation on a generic computer does not add significantly more to the claims. Accordingly, the analysis under step 2B of the Subject Matter Eligibility Test does not result in a conclusion of eligibility (See flowchart in MPEP 2106).
Claims 10-12 and 17-18 are similarly analyzed as steps that could be carried out as a mental process.
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 1,3-18 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-3, 5-9, and 11-24 of copending Application No. 18/272,754 (reference application, note this application has been allowed but the issue fee has not yet been paid and no patent number has been issued yet). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claim limitations of the instant invention are present in the more detailed application ‘754. Note that the claim numbering mentioned below is for the amended claims of ‘754 with the date 10/09/25.
Regarding claim 1, ‘754 discloses a system implementing a trained object detector (claim 1 lines 1-2) comprising: a localization sub-network taking an image as input and outputting one or more bounding boxes enclosing one or more objects detected in the image (claim 1 lines 3-6); and one or more downstream modules using the output of the localization sub-network (claim 1 lines 19-20); wherein the localization sub-network outputs complex polygonal bounding boxes defined by a center point and multiple pairs of coordinates defining vertices of the bounding boxes as offsets from the center point (claim 1 lines 13-18, offsets from pixel locations to four corners of a quadrilateral where the center of the quadrilateral is a gravity center).
Claims 3-18 are similarly mapped with claims 1-3, 5-9, and 11-24 of ‘754.
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.
Claim 12 is 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 12 recites the limitation "the feature pyramid" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim (it is noted that claim 3 has the feature pyramid but claim 12 does not depend on claim 3).
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.
Claims 1, 10, and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xu et al. US 2019/0096086 (hereinafter “Xu”, cited in the IDS) in view of Tang et al. US 10,157,331 (hereinafter “Tang”).
Regarding claim 1, Xu discloses a system implementing a trained object detector (see paragraph 0009 estimating 3d bounding boxes that represent objects in an environment, see also figure 2)
PNG
media_image1.png
148
348
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
632
440
media_image2.png
Greyscale
comprising: a localization sub-network taking an image as input and outputting one or more bounding boxes enclosing one or more objects detected in the image (see figure 2 where the image 202 and 206 are input and the output after passing through ANN 222 is a bounding box enclosing the object);
PNG
media_image3.png
250
358
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Xu does not explicitly disclose a downstream module using the output of the localization subnetwork, however it is well known to use a bounding box output as an input into a further module as shown by Tang.
Tang discloses improving object recognition by taking a generated bounding box 103 and inputting it into an object recognition module 107 (see figure 1).
PNG
media_image4.png
258
500
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Xu and Tang are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor of object recognition.
Before the effective filing date of the invention it would be obvious to use the results of the bounding box generated by Xu for further operations such as recognizing details of the object. The motivation would be to generate the bounding box to serve a useful purpose finding information about the object.
Regarding claim 10, the central point is the center of gravity of the bounding box (see paragraph 0024 of Xu).
Regarding claim 17, Xu nor Tang do not explicitly disclose a projection transformation applied to the bounding boxes to correct pose. However it is well known to correct poses with projection transformations to which the Examiner declares official notice. The motivation for doing so would be to improve the accuracy of the bounding box for object recognition.
Regarding claim 18, the downstream module of Tang 107 discloses object recognition [classification].
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xu in view of Tang and further in view of Wang et al. US 2015/0371397 (hereinafter “Wang”).
Regarding claim 11, as discussed Xu and Tang disclose the invention of claim 1.
Xu nor Tang do not explicitly disclose that the localization network is trained on a dataset comprising images annotated with ground-truth polygonal bounding boxes.
Wang discloses the localization network is trained on a dataset comprising images annotated with ground-truth polygonal bounding boxes (see paragraph 0047, to avoid overfitting during training the system randomly sample 80k bounding boxes around ground truth objects to train the localization model).
Xu, Tang, and Wang are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor of object detection.
Before the effective filing date of the invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Xu, Tang, and Wang to use a localization network is trained on a dataset comprising images annotated with ground-truth polygonal bounding boxes. The motivation would be to use samples to find the right bounding box fit.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 3-9, 13-16 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 (note that the double patenting rejection must also be overcome).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Please see the attached 892 notice of references cited.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN B STREGE whose telephone number is (571)272-7457. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5 (PST).
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, Chan Park can be reached at (571)272-7409. 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.
/JOHN B STREGE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2669
Prosecution Insights