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 .
Drawings
The drawings were received on 11/23/2024. These drawings are accepted.
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:
storage unit in claims 1, 3, 5, and 8
acquisition unit in claims 3 and 5
output unit in claim 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.
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.
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.
Claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Weng et al. (US20190197299, hereinafter “Weng”)
Claim 1. (Currently Amended) Weng teaches An object detection device comprising: a memory; ([0068] “random access memory (RAM) 503”) and
at least one processor connected to the memory, ([0068] “central processing unit (CPU) 501,…The CPU 501, the ROM 502 and the RAM 503 are connected to each other through a bus 504.”)
wherein the processor is configured to acquire metadata including at least a position ([0047] “acquire, in the first feature map, the area corresponding to a position” ) and reliability of an object ([0047] “probability map indicates the probability that the area where the pixel value is located is a body,” is understood to be the same as the claimed reliability of an object in light of instant specifications [0033] because it is referring to “the reliability may include an object reliability indicating the degree of accuracy of the presence of an object.” Which Is synonymous with the cited [0047]“probability that the area where the pixel value is located is a body”) included in an image ([0045] “import the to-be-detected image into the feature extraction network to obtain a first feature map.” A position on a feature map derived from inputting an image into a feature extraction network is understood by the examiner to be the same as the claimed metadata) from a convolutional neural network into which the image is input, ([0045] “the feature extraction network may be implemented using a convolutional neural network.”)
store ([0068] “The RAM 503 also stores various programs and data required by operations of the system 500.”) a feature map value group which is an output ([0045] “import the to-be-detected image into the feature extraction network to obtain a first feature map”) result of the convolutional neural network, ([0045] “the feature extraction network may be implemented using a convolutional neural network.”) and
read a feature map value related to the position ([0047] “acquire, in the first feature map, the area corresponding to a position in the probability map”) of the corresponding object from the storage unit to obtain the position of the object ([0047] “a pixel value in the probability map indicates the probability that the area is the body,”) only when the reliability obtained by reading a feature map value, which is related to the reliability in the stored feature map value group, ([0047] “acquire, in the first feature map, the area corresponding to a position in the probability map”) from the storage unit exceeds a predetermined threshold value. ([0047] “Finally, the electronic device may acquire, in the first feature map, the area corresponding to a position in the probability map having the pixel value greater than a predetermined first probability threshold as the body feature area.” )
Claim 2. (Original) Weng teaches The object detection device according to claim 1, wherein the reliability includes an object reliability indicating a degree of accuracy of presence of the object ([0047] “the area corresponding to a position in the probability map having the pixel value greater than a predetermined first probability threshold as the body feature area.” is synonymous with the claimed object reliability indicating a degree of accuracy of presence of the object because a probability that is greater than a threshold indicating an area being a body feature area is the same as a degree of accuracy of presence of the object) and a
class-by-class reliability group for each class of the object. ([0055] “body key point of the body A includes the head 3011, the left shoulder 3012, the right shoulder 3013, the left hand 3014, the right hand 3015, the waist 3016, the left foot 3017, and the right foot 3018. If the body key point belongs to the body A, the judgment result “Yes” is outputted; and if it does not belong to the body A, the judgment result “No” is outputted.” Is understood by the examiner to be the same as the claimed class by class reliability group for each class of the object because each body part is determined to be either part of the body or not which is a determination of the degree of accuracy of presence of the object which is the object reliability. )
Claim 3. (Original) Weng teaches The object detection device according to claim 2, wherein the feature map value acquisition unit reads, from the storage unit, ([0068] “The RAM 503 also stores various programs and data required by operations of the system 500.”) a feature map value related to a position of the corresponding object ([0047] “Finally, the electronic device may acquire, in the first feature map, the area corresponding to a position in the probability map having the pixel value greater than a predetermined first probability threshold as the body feature area.” ) and a feature map value related to the class-by-class reliability group ([0055] “body key point of the body A includes the head 3011, the left shoulder 3012, the right shoulder 3013, the left hand 3014, the right hand 3015, the waist 3016, the left foot 3017, and the right foot 3018. If the body key point belongs to the body A, the judgment result “Yes” is outputted; and if it does not belong to the body A, the judgment result “No” is outputted.” Is understood by the examiner to be the same as the claimed class by class reliability group) only when an object reliability obtained from a feature map value related to the object reliability exceeds the threshold value. ([0047] “probability map having the pixel value greater than a predetermined first probability threshold as the body feature area.”)
Claim 4. (Original) Weng teaches The object detection device according to claim 1, wherein the reliability includes a class-by-class reliability group for each class of the object. ([0055] “body key point of the body A includes the head 3011, the left shoulder 3012, the right shoulder 3013, the left hand 3014, the right hand 3015, the waist 3016, the left foot 3017, and the right foot 3018. If the body key point belongs to the body A, the judgment result “Yes” is outputted; and if it does not belong to the body A, the judgment result “No” is outputted.” Is understood by the examiner to be the same as the claimed class by class reliability group for each class of the object because each body part is determined to be either part of the body or not)
Claim 5. (Original) Weng teaches The object detection device according to claim 4, wherein the feature map value acquisition unit reads a feature map value related to a position of the corresponding object ([0047] “Finally, the electronic device may acquire, in the first feature map, the area corresponding to a position in the probability map having the pixel value greater than a predetermined first probability threshold as the body feature area.” ) from the storage unit ([0068] “The RAM 503 also stores various programs and data required by operations of the system 500.”) only when at least one of the class-by-class reliability groups obtained from feature map values related to the class-by-class reliability groups of the object ([0055] “body key point of the body A includes the head 3011, the left shoulder 3012, the right shoulder 3013, the left hand 3014, the right hand 3015, the waist 3016, the left foot 3017, and the right foot 3018. If the body key point belongs to the body A, the judgment result “Yes” is outputted; and if it does not belong to the body A, the judgment result “No” is outputted.” Is understood by the examiner to be the same as the claimed class by class reliability group ) exceeds the threshold value. ([0047] “probability map having the pixel value greater than a predetermined first probability threshold as the body feature area.”)
Claim 6. (Currently Amended) Weng teaches The object detection device according to any one of claim 1, further comprising:
an output unit that outputs a recognition result of the object using the convolutional neural network. ([0009] “convolutional neural network to obtain a probability map, wherein a pixel value in the probability map indicates a probability of an area being the body”)
Claim 7. (Original) The method herein has been executed and performed by the system of claim 1 and is likewise rejected.
Claim 8. (Currently Amended) The non-transitory storage medium herein has been executed and performed by the system of claim 1 and is likewise rejected.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure:
Huang et al US20170147905 teaches outputting bounding boxes for areas that meet a confidence score threshold from the feature maps using a convolutional neural network
Kim et al US10650548 teaches applying a CNN to a feature map to detect a specific coordinate on the feature map based on a similarity score between the partial live feature map and the live feature map
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OWAIS MEMON whose telephone number is (571)272-2168. The examiner can normally be reached M-F (7:00am - 4:00pm) CST.
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, Gregory Morse can be reached at (571) 272-3838. 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.
/OWAIS I MEMON/Examiner, Art Unit 2663
Prosecution Insights