CTNF 18/844,492 CTNF 85722 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Priority 02-26 AIA Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55. Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 09/06/2024 and 10/17/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner. 07-30-03-h AIA Claim Interpretation 07-30-03 AIA 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. 07-30-05 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. 07-30-06 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: “a corner detection unit”, “an exclusion unit”, “a target object detection unit” and “a prediction unit”, in claims 1-6. 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. The original specifications Fig. 10 and paragraphs [0011-0021] discloses computer hardware processor(s) and their equivalents thereof to execute the functions performed by the units. 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. Double Patenting 08-33 AIA 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. Claim 1 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of US Pub No. 20250182288. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both are directed to counting number of spikes when there is grain detected in the image captured. Current Application US Pub No. 20250182288 Claim 1. A spike number prediction device that predicts the number of spikes of grain, the spike number prediction device comprising: a corner detection unit configured to perform grid division on a region image in which a region including a two-dimensional unit region set in a cultivation field of the grain is reflected and detect corners of the two-dimensional unit region in obtained first divided images using an image recognition technique; an exclusion unit configured to acquire a position of the two-dimensional unit region based on positions of the corners detected by the corner detection unit and exclude image data of a region outside the two-dimensional unit region from image data of the first divided images based on the position of the two-dimensional unit region; a target object detection unit configured to perform grid division on an image based on image data after exclusion in the exclusion unit in a division size according to a size of the spike of the grain as a target object and detect the spikes of the grain from obtained second divided images; and a prediction unit configured to count the number of spikes of the grain detected by the target object detection unit and predict, based on a relative size relationship between a predetermined target range in the cultivation field of the grain and the two- dimensional unit region, and a spike number count value obtained by the counting, the number of spikes of the grain in the target range. Claim 1. A spike number prediction device that predicts the number of spikes of grain, the spike number prediction device comprising: a spike number counting unit configured to count, from image data of the grain obtained by imaging a two-dimensional unit region set in a cultivation field of the grain, the number of spikes of the grain of the two-dimensional unit region based on an image recognition technique; a correction unit configured to correct a spike number count value obtained by counting in the spike number counting unit based on correlation information between a spike number count value obtained in advance by statistical processing and a spike number true value; and a spike number prediction unit configured to predict, based on a relative size relationship between a predetermined target range in the cultivation field of the grain and the two-dimensional unit region, and the corrected spike number value after correction by the correction unit, the number of spikes of the grain in the target range. Allowable Subject Matter 07-43-02 Claims 1-6 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. non-statutory double patenting, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Claims 2-6 would be allowable over prior art if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Conclusion 07-96 AIA The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure : Ma et al. (CN-113256704-B, a grain length and width measuring method, comprising the following steps: preparing grain image data set, and marking the grain to form training data set; constructing a characteristic pyramid convolution neural network model; obtaining grain image, and performing partitioning and normalization pre-treatment to the grain image; taking the pre-processed grain image as the training sample, gradually extracting the characteristic and size information of the grain image by using the convolution kernel, and using the reverse transmission and random gradient descent algorithm to monitor and minimize the loss function so as to obtain the connection weight of the model and obtain the trained neural network model; partitioning and normalizing the grain image to be tested, and then inputting the trained network model to obtain the grain detection result; converting the grain pixel length and width value of the grain detection result into the actual length and width value. The method for measuring length and width of grain of the invention is simple, easy to use, low in cost, fast and high in precision, Abstract) Xu et al. (CN-112883915-B, The invention claims a wheat ear automatic identification method and system based on migration learning, relating to migration learning technology field, the method comprising: collecting the wheat ear image with ground standard and non-ground standard; constructing a data set based on the ear image; inputting the constructed data set into the Yolov5 model to perform migration learning and target identification training to the model; inputting the to-be-tested image into the trained Yolov5 model to realize the identification and counting of the unit area wheat ear. Adopting the method and system of the invention, the model precision of the migration learning is 91.10 %, mAP @0.5 is 98.20 %, the application migration learning of the ear density R2 = 0.83, on the basis, optimizing the K-means feature extraction algorithm to improve the identification precision through the MAIR feature detection algorithm, after optimizing the wheat ear density identification R2 = 0.95, the average processing time 12.17s the single image, FPS of the model reaches 111, Abstract). Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PINALBEN V PATEL whose telephone number is (571)270-5872. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 10am - 8pm. 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, Chineyere Wills-Burns can be reached at 571-272-9752. 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. /Pinalben Patel/Examiner, Art Unit 2673 Application/Control Number: 18/844,492 Page 2 Art Unit: 2673 Application/Control Number: 18/844,492 Page 3 Art Unit: 2673 Application/Control Number: 18/844,492 Page 4 Art Unit: 2673 Application/Control Number: 18/844,492 Page 5 Art Unit: 2673 Application/Control Number: 18/844,492 Page 6 Art Unit: 2673 Application/Control Number: 18/844,492 Page 7 Art Unit: 2673 Application/Control Number: 18/844,492 Page 8 Art Unit: 2673 Application/Control Number: 18/844,492 Page 9 Art Unit: 2673 Application/Control Number: 18/844,492 Page 10 Art Unit: 2673 Application/Control Number: 18/844,492 Page 11 Art Unit: 2673 Application/Control Number: 18/844,492 Page 12 Art Unit: 2673 Application/Control Number: 18/844,492 Page 13 Art Unit: 2673 Application/Control Number: 18/844,492 Page 14 Art Unit: 2673
Prosecution Insights