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 .
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
The following title is suggested: WASTE CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM BASED ON FUSING A VISION CAMERA AND AN INFRARED CAMERA.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it says “hyperspectral,” but the specification only discloses infrared. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Objections
Claim 7 is objected to for reciting “and” rather than “or.” MPEP 2111.01(II), citing Superguide Corp. v. DirecTV Enterprises, Inc., 358 F.3d 870, 875, 69 USPQ2d 1865, 1868 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
Appropriate correction is required.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed December 31, 2024 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(2), which requires a legible copy of each cited foreign patent document; each non-patent literature publication or that portion which caused it to be listed; and all other information or that portion which caused it to be listed. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered.
Specifically, the NPL by Song does not have an English translation. The IDS identifies it as a 113 page document, but the 113 page document in the file as of December 31, 2024 is in Korean.
For the foreign patent documents, only the translated abstracts have been considered.
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 limitations are:
Claim 1 – “first learning data generation unit,” “second learning data generation unit,” and “waste classification unit”
Claim 2 – “target object specifying unit”
Claim 4 – “semi-supervised learning processing model unit” and “target object material prediction unit”
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 § 112
A preliminary review of the specification suggests that there is insufficient disclosure to demonstrate possession of the variously claimed artificial intelligence. However, because the claims are drafted with a means-plus-function format, this issue is not reached.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-9 (all claims) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 recites “hyperspectral,” but the specification only teaches infrared. The specification does not, for instance, teach use of ultraviolet or x-ray. Thus the specification has only demonstrated possession of infrared, rather than the entire genus of “hyperspectral.”
Claims 1-9 (all claims) are rejected as a formality because the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph language in these claims does not have sufficient structure in the specification. This rejection matches the below indefiniteness rejection for the same language. Once that rejection is overcome, this one will be as well.
Dependent claims are likewise rejected.
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.
Claims 1-9 (all claims) are 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.
Claims 1-9 (all claims) recite the claim elements identified in the 112(f) claim interpretation section (above) that are limitations that invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to clearly link the corresponding structure, material, or acts for the claimed function. The disclosure of the means plus function claim terms is by way of example, rather than specifying a complete list. The reliance on exemplary language requires one of ordinary skill in the art to know what structures to use to accomplish the claimed function(s). Reliance on the knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art to know what structures to use renders the claim indefinite. MPEP 2181.
MPEP 2181 states “In cases involving a special purpose computer-implemented means-plus-function limitation, the Federal Circuit has consistently required that the structure be more than simply a general purpose computer or microprocessor and that the specification must disclose an algorithm for performing the claimed function. See, e.g., Noah Systems Inc. v. Intuit Inc., 675 F.3d 1302, 1312, 102 USPQ2d 1410, 1417 (Fed. Cir. 2012); Aristocrat, 521 F.3d at 1333, 86 USPQ2d at 1239.” Therefore, each of these claim limitations is indefinite.
Claim 1 recites “via,” but this is unclear as to whether the claimed AI is part of the claimed unit or not. The same issue arises for the waste classification unit and the third AI model.
Dependent claims are likewise rejected.
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 1-9 (all claims) are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over the claims of each of U.S. Patent App. No. 18/880,321 in view of the prior art as applied below.
Both the pending claims and the conflicting patents are all directed to infrared waste classification. Therefore, all of the conflicting patents are directed to the same problem as the present application. Further, any differences between the present claims and the claims in any of the conflicting patents are obvious in view of the prior art as applied below. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to combine the below prior art with any of the conflicting patents for implementation details (especially as the patent claims lack implementation details). Based on the findings herein, this is an example of “(A) Combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.” MPEP 2143.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-4 and 7-9 (all claims except those rejected under 103, below) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and/or (a)(2) as being anticipated by US20220331841A1 (“Filler”). References are listed in the Notice of Cited References when they were first cited. If a reference is not identifiable (e.g., due to a typo), it can be identified by searching for the quoted text.
[Claim 1] A vision-hyperspectral fusion data-based waste classification system, comprising:
a first learning data generation unit generating first learning data for a target object via a first artificial intelligence model trained using a hyperspectral image of waste acquired via a hyperspectral sensor; (Filler, Fig. 13, “AI camera” and [0168] “imagery may be collected at plural different near infrared wavelengths.” [0168] describes what the AI camera can capture. Filler’s infrared teaches the claimed hyperspectral.)
a second learning data generation unit generating second learning data for the target object via a second artificial intelligence model trained using a vision image of waste acquired via a vision camera; and (Filler, Fig. 13, “AI camera” and [0168] “an AI camera can capture simultaneous multi-spectral image data, e.g., with white light illumination and an RGB sensor”)
a waste classification unit that performs waste classification for the target object by applying the first learning data and the second learning data to a third artificial intelligence model. (Filler, Fig. 12 and [0022] “FIG. 12 shows an annotated map of an image frame produced by a trained classifier.”)
[Claim 2] The system of claim 1, further comprising a target object specifying unit that specifies the target object using the hyperspectral image and the vision image, (Filler, Fig. 12 and [0022] “FIG. 12 shows an annotated map of an image frame produced by a trained classifier.”)
wherein the target object specifying unit specifies the target object by considering locations of the vision camera and the hyperspectral sensor and a moving speed of the waste on a conveyor. (Filler, Fig. 1. Note that Fig. 1 includes the belt speed in the bottom right corner.)
[Claim 3] The system of claim 2, wherein the target object specifying unit determines an analysis region of the target object by excluding a portion in which the target object overlaps with other waste. (Filler, Fig. 24 and [0033], “FIG. 24 depicts a convolutional neural network suitable for judging whether imagery depicts plural adjoining or overlapping items, or not.”)
[Claim 4] The system of claim 1, wherein the first learning data generation unit comprises:
a semi-supervised learning processing model unit that processes the hyperspectral data through a semi-supervised learning processing model to generate integrated data; and (Filler, [0189] “In such instances each label is already effectively “self-labeled,” greatly simplifying the training effort, and enabling “semi-supervised training” to occur.”)
a target object material prediction unit discriminating a material of the target object using the integrated data through a deep learning model. (Filler, Fig. 12 and [0022] “FIG. 12 shows an annotated map of an image frame produced by a trained classifier.” Fig. 12 recognizes objects as “plastic” versus “aluminum,” teaching the claimed material prediction.)
[Claim 7] The system of claim 4, wherein the deep learning model uses one or more of a convolutional neural network (CNN) and a recurrent neural network (RNN). (Filler, Fig. 24 and [0033], “FIG. 24 depicts a convolutional neural network suitable for judging whether imagery depicts plural adjoining or overlapping items, or not.”)
[Claim 8] The system of The system of wherein the second artificial intelligence model uses one or more of the CNN and the RNN; and (Filler, [0252] “a convolutional neural network used in object identification”)
wherein the second learning data discriminates a shape and color of the waste for the target object. (Filler, [0252] “The context(s) can comprise color information (e.g., histogram), partial or complete decoding of a machine-readable symbology (e.g., barcode or watermark), detection of certain edges or shapes (e.g., suggesting particular objects), detection of SIFT, SURF or other image keypoints with associated descriptors (e.g., suggesting particular objects), etc.” [0252] specifies that the context is for “a convolutional neural network used in object identification.”)
[Claim 9] The system of claim 1, wherein the third artificial intelligence model is one or more of multiple linear regression (MLR) analysis, support vector machine (SVM), or K-nearest neighbor (k-NN) classification. (Filler, [0330] “One of many other suitable alternatives is a SVM (support-vector machine) classifier.”)
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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 5 and 6 (the claims not rejected under 102, above) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US20220331841A1 (“Filler”) in view of CN111626317A (“Liu”). References are listed in the Notice of Cited References when they were first cited. If a reference is not identifiable (e.g., due to a typo), it can be identified by searching for the quoted text. Citations to the Liu are to the attached espacenet translation.
[Claim 5] The system of claim 4, wherein the hyperspectral data comprises labeled data and unlabeled data, and the semi-supervised learning processing model processes the labeled data and the unlabeled data through a principal component analysis network. (Liu, [0016] “The output layer classifies spectral curve/principal component image sample pairs into three categories: ① real label/real data, ② pseudo label/real data, ③ real label/pseudo data.” See also, [0031] “Principal component analysis is performed on the effective pixels in the 3D data block”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the teachings of Liu to the teachings of Filler such that Liu’s principal component analysis is used with Filler’s AI for the purpose of identifying principal components in the images to avoid overfitting. Liu, [0059].
Based on the above, this is an example of “combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.” MPEP 2143.
[Claim 6] The system of claim 5, wherein the hyperspectral data comprises spatial information and spectral information; and (Filler, Fig. 13, “AI camera” and [0168] “imagery may be collected at plural different near infrared wavelengths.” [0168] describes what the AI camera can capture. Filler’s infrared teaches the claimed hyperspectral.)
wherein the semi-supervised learning processing model unit generates the integrated data by integrating respective results obtained after training each of the spatial information and the spectral information through the semi-supervised learning processing model. (Filler, [0189] “In such instances each label is already effectively “self-labeled,” greatly simplifying the training effort, and enabling “semi-supervised training” to occur.”)
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID ORANGE whose telephone number is (571)270-1799. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri, 9-5.
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.
/DAVID ORANGE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2663
Prosecution Insights