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 .
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 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,136,229. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other as will be shown below:
12,136,229
18/894916
Claim 1. A system comprising:
one or more processors; and
Claim 1. A system comprising:
one or more processors; and
one or more non-transitory computer-readable media storing instructions executable by one or more processors, wherein the instructions, when executed, cause the system to perform operations comprising:
one or more non-transitory computer-readable media storing instructions executable by one or more processors, wherein the instructions, when executed, cause the system to perform operations comprising:
receiving sensor data representing an object in an environment;
receiving sensor data representing an object in an environment;
determining, based at least in part on the sensor data, multi-channel input data representing the environment;
determining, based at least in part on the sensor data, multi-channel input data representing the environment;
inputting the multi-channel input data into a machine-learned (ML) model;
inputting the multi-channel input data into a machine-learned (ML) model;
determining, by the ML model, a candidate bounding box representing the object in the environment and a confidence value associated with the candidate bounding box;
determining, by the ML model, a candidate bounding box representing the object in the environment and a confidence value associated with the candidate bounding box;
receiving ground truth data associated with the multi-channel input data, the ground truth data including a ground truth bounding box associated with the object;
receiving ground truth data associated with the multi-channel input data, the ground truth data including a ground truth bounding box associated with the object;
determining an intersection over union (IoU) between the candidate bounding box the ground truth bounding box;
comparing the candidate bounding box with the ground truth bounding box;
Examiner’s note: Even though these limitations are not identical, they are directed to the same subject matter of a comparison between candidate and ground truth bounding box
determining a first loss based at least in part on the IoU: determining a second loss based at least in part on the confidence value associated with the candidate bounding box; and
determining a loss based at least in part on comparing the candidate bounding box with the ground truth bounding box; and
Examiner’s note: The current limitation is covered by the limitation of US 12,136,229. Even though the patent limitations contain further limitations, it is still within the scope of the same subject matter.
training the ML model based at least in part on the first loss and the second loss.
training the ML model based at least in part on the loss and the confidence value.
Examiner’s note: The confidence value and the “second loss” are equivalent in scope in accordance to the claim limitations, they are directed to the same subject matter of the confidence value.
Claims 2-20 of the current application correspond to claims 2-20 of US Patent 13,136,229, therefore a similar analysis as that shown above applies.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LENNIN R RODRIGUEZ whose telephone number is (571)270-1678. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 9:00am-7:00pm.
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, Abderrahim Merouan can be reached at 571-270-5254. 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.
/LENNIN R RODRIGUEZGONZALEZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2683
Prosecution Insights