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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The listing of references in the PCT international search report is not considered to be an information disclosure statement (IDS) complying with 37 CFR 1.98. 37 CFR 1.98(a)(2) requires a legible copy of: (1) each foreign patent; (2) each publication or that portion which caused it to be listed; (3) for each cited pending U.S. application, the application specification including claims, and any drawing of the application, or that portion of the application which caused it to be listed including any claims directed to that portion, unless the cited pending U.S. application is stored in the Image File Wrapper (IFW) system; and (4) all other information, or that portion which caused it to be listed. In addition, each IDS must include a list of all patents, publications, applications, or other information submitted for consideration by the Office (see 37 CFR 1.98(a)(1) and (b)), and MPEP § 609.04(a), subsection I. states, “the list ... must be submitted on a separate paper.” Therefore, the references cited in the international search report have not been considered. Applicant is advised that the date of submission of any item of information in the international search report will be the date of submission of the IDS for purposes of determining compliance with the requirements for the IDS with 37 CFR 1.97, including all timing statement requirements of 37 CFR 1.97(e). See MPEP § 609.05(a).
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 17 December 2024 is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Interpretation
Claims 1 recites “an updating section which updates at least one of the one or more feature extraction sections, the one or more relighting sections, and the one or more class prediction sections.”
Claims 2 and 12 recite “a conversion loss computed with reference to at least one or more features from the source domain structural features, the source domain new view features, the target domain structural features and the target domain new view features.”
Claim 3 recites “when the merged loss is not converged, update at least one of the one or more feature extraction sections, the one or more relighting sections, and the one or more class prediction sections.”
Claim 6 recites “calculate the conversion loss with reference to at least one or more features from the source domain structural features, the source domain new view features, the target domain structural features and the target domain new view features.
Claim 10 recites “at least one of the feature extraction section and the class prediction section has been trained with reference to new view features obtained by converting the structural features.
Claim 11 recites “updating at least one of the one or more feature extraction sections, the one or more relighting sections, and the one or more class prediction sections.”
Claim 13 recites “when the merged loss is not converged, at least one of the one or more feature extraction sections, the one or more relighting sections, and the one or more class prediction sections is updated.”
Superguide Corp. V. DirecTV Enterprises, Inc., 69 USPQ2d 1865 (Fed. Cir. 2004) stated that:
A common treatise on grammar teaches that "an article of a preposition applying to all the members of the series must either be used only before the first term or else be repeated before each term." William Strunk, Jr. & E.B.White, The Elements of Style 27 (4th ed. 2000). Thus, "[i]n spring, summer, or winter" means "in spring, in summer, or in winter." Id. Applying this grammatical principle here,
the phrase "at least one of" modifies each member of the list, i.e., each category in the list.
Thus, the plain meaning of the phrase "at least one of X, y, and Z", is "at least one of X, and at least one of y, and at least one of z". The claimed limitations mentioned above will be examiner under this interpretation.
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 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 1 recites a training apparatus comprising:
a memory storing software instructions, and
one or more processors configured to execute the software instructions to implement
one or more feature extraction sections which extract source domain structural features from input source domain image data, and extract target domain structural features from input target domain image data,
a rigid transformation section which generates transformed structural features by rigid transforming structural features with reference to conversion parameters,
one or more relighting sections which generate new view features with reference to the transformed structural features and the conversion parameters in a way that the new view features approximate structural features which are extracted from input image data at the views indicated by the conversion parameters,
one or more class prediction sections which predict source domain class prediction values from the source domain structural features and the source domain new view features, and predict target domain class prediction values from the target domain structural features and the target domain new view features, and
an updating section which updates at least one of the one or more feature extraction sections, the one or more relighting sections, and the one or more class prediction sections.
This claim is directed to an apparatus, which is one of the four statutory categories. However, the limitations of extracting, generating, predicting and updating, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components (memory and one or more processors). That is, other than reciting “memory” and “one or more processors” nothing in the claim elements precludes that steps from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “memory” and “one or more processors” language, “extract” “generate” “predict” and “update” in the context of this claim encompasses the user mentally processing images and training their mind. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract idea. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites two additional elements - “memory” and “one or more processors” to perform the steps. The “memory” and “one or more processors” in the steps are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e. as a generic processor performing generic computer functions) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a “memory” and “one or more processors” to perform the “extract” “generate” “predict” and “update” steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claims 2-13 similarly recite additional limitations that amount to mere steps that can be performed using a human mind or by paper, where the additional element of using a “memory” and “one or more processors” to perform the steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Therefore, claims 2-13 are also rejected similarly as in claim 1 above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sohn et al. (WO 2019/045982 A1).
Regarding claim 10, Sohn et al. disclose a classification apparatus (Paragraph [0091] and Figure 6.) comprising:
a memory storing software instructions (Paragraphs [0023]-[0024]), and
one or more processors (Paragraphs [0023]-[0024]) configured to execute the software instructions to implement
a feature extraction section which extracts structural features from input image data (Paragraph [0095]), and
a class prediction section which predicts class prediction values from the structural features (Paragraph [0096]), wherein
at least one of the feature extraction section and the class prediction section has been trained with reference to new view features obtained by converting the structural features (Paragraphs [0029]-[0030]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Kaufhold (US 2016/0019458) discloses systems and methods for recognizing objects in radar imagery.
Kim et al. (US 2020/0250468) disclose a learning method and learning device for sensor fusion to integrate information acquired by radar.
Rostami et al. (US 2020/0264300) disclose a system and method for synthetic aperture radar (SAR) based object detection.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEPHEN G SHERMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-2941. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:00am - 4pm ET.
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, AMR AWAD can be reached at (571)272-7764. 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.
/STEPHEN G SHERMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2621
6 March 2026