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, 2, 3, 4, 5 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 2, 3, 6, and 7 of U.S. Patent No. 12,118,816. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they are not patentably distinct from each other because representative patent method claim 1 requires the additional elements (See the highlighted elements shown in the table below) not required by representative application method claim 1. However, the conflicting claims are not patentably distinct from each other because:
The claims recite common subject matter;
Whereby representative application claim 1 which recite the open-ended transitional phrase "comprising", does not preclude the additional elements recited by representative patent claim 1, and
Whereby the elements of representative application claim 1 is fully anticipated by representative patent claim 1, and anticipation is "the ultimate or epitome of obviousness". (In re Kalm, 154 USPQ 10 (CCPA 1967), also In re Dailey, 178 USPQ 293 (CCPA 1973) and In re Pearson, 181 USPQ 641 (CCPA 1974)).
US Application No. 18/909,599
US Patent No. 12,118,816
Claim 1. A method comprising:
Claim.1. A method comprising:
receiving, by a processing device, one or more sets of documents;
receiving, by a processing device, one or more sets of documents, wherein each document of the one or more sets of documents is associated with respective metadata;
assigning each document of the one or more sets of documents to one or more basic
clusters;
assigning each document of the one or more sets of documents to one or more basic clusters based on the metadata of the document;
for each cluster of the one or more basic clusters, training a respective basic cluster
model detecting one or more visual element types;
for each cluster of the one or more basic clusters, training a respective basic cluster model detecting one or more visual element types;
generating one or more superclusters, each supercluster containing a respective
plurality of basic clusters, based on an attribute shared by documents comprised by the plurality of basic clusters;
responsive to a first threshold criterion measure related to the one or more basic clusters being satisfied, generating one or more superclusters, each supercluster containing a respective plurality of basic clusters, based on an attribute shared by documents comprised by the plurality of basic clusters;
for each supercluster of the one or more superclusters, training a respective
supercluster model detecting the one or more visual element types;
for each supercluster of the one or more superclusters, training a respective supercluster model detecting the one or more visual element types; receiving an input document;
assigning an input document to a corresponding basic cluster and a corresponding supercluster; and
assigning the input document to a corresponding basic cluster, a corresponding supercluster, and a corresponding generalized cluster; and
detecting one or more visual elements by processing the input document by the corresponding basic cluster model and the corresponding supercluster model.
detecting one or more visual elements by processing the input document by each of the corresponding basic cluster model, the corresponding supercluster model, and the corresponding generalized model.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6-9 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if applicant overcomes the rejection under obviousness double patenting by way of an amendment or filing a terminal disclaimer. rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 10-20 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: 3. The following is an examiner's statement of reasons for allowance: the prior art to Chiang, et al. (US 11,042,802 B2) carry out a hierarchical data clustering 303, on a training dataset. The hierarchical data clustering 303 comprises level-1 data clustering 304 to produce level-1 clustered dataset 305, level-2 data clustering 306 to produce level-2 clustered dataset 307, and so on, up to level-K data clustering 308 to produce level-K clustered dataset 309 The process of hierarchical data clustering 303 comprises hierarchical data clustering on the input dataset and hierarchical data clustering on the output dataset. In one embodiment of the present invention, the process of hierarchical data clustering 303 is performed on data records, namely, to hierarchically compute groups of data records such that data records belonging to a same group are similar to each other while data records belonging to different groups are quite different from each other, and that the number of data variables (i.e., features) stays unchanged for each cluster. In another embodiment of the present invention, the process of hierarchical data clustering 303 is performed on data variables, namely, to hierarchically compute groups of data variables (i.e., features) such that data variables belonging to a same group are similar to each other while data variables belonging to different groups are different from each other, and that the number of data records stays unchanged for each cluster. In the process of hierarchical data clustering 303, the number of clusters increases as the level is raised. In the process of hierarchical data clustering 303, the data clusters at level k-1 is used for data clustering at level k, where k=2, K. Based on the result of the process of hierarchical data clustering 303, a process 310 of hierarchical model building is then carried out, which comprises level-1 model building 311 using the level-1 clustered dataset 305, level-2 model building 312 using the level-2 clustered dataset 307, and so on, up to level-K model building 313 using the level-K clustered dataset 309. In the process 310 of hierarchical model building, the model built at level k-1 is used for model building at level k, where k=2, K. The built model at the last level, namely, level-K built model is a resulting built predictive model 314 and is the model to be deployed (See col. 6, line 47 - col. 7, line 31).
Upon receiving one or more sets of documents, the instant invention: assigns each document of the one or more sets of documents to one or more basic clusters; for each cluster of the one or more basic clusters, trains a respective basic cluster model detecting one or more visual clement types; generates one or more superclusters, each supercluster containing a respective plurality of basic clusters, based on an attribute shared by documents comprised by the plurality of basic clusters; for each supercluster of the one or more superclusters, trains a respective supercluster model detecting the one or more visual element types. Thereafter, the instant invention assigns an input document to a corresponding basic cluster and a corresponding supercluster; and detects one or more visual elements by processing the input document by the corresponding basic cluster model and the corresponding supercluster model, as defined by independent claims 10 and 16. These elements in combination with all of the other elements of the claims are not disclosed or fairly suggested by the prior art of record.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US Patent No. 11,042,802.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL G MARIAM whose telephone number is (571)272-7394. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-5:00 EST.
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, ANDREW MOYER can be reached at (571)272-9523. 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.
/DANIEL G MARIAM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2675
Prosecution Insights