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 .
DETAILED ACTION
CLAIM REJECTIONS - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
The USPTO “Interim Guidelines for Examination of Patent Applications for Patent Subject Matter Eligibility” (Official Gazette notice of 22 November 2005), Annex IV, reads as follows:
In contrast, a claimed computer-readable medium encoded with a computer program is a computer element which defines structural and functional interrelationships between the computer program and the rest of the computer which permit the computer program's functionality to be realized, and is thus statutory. See Lowry, 32 F.3d at 1583-84, 32 USPQ2d at 1035.
Claims that recite nothing but the physical characteristics of a form of energy, such as a frequency, voltage, or the strength of a magnetic field, define energy or magnetism, per se, and as such are nonstatutory natural phenomena. O'Reilly, 56 U.S. (15 How.) at 112-14. Moreover, it does not appear that a claim reciting a signal encoded with functional descriptive material falls within any of the categories of patentable subject matter set forth in Sec. 101.
… a signal does not fall within one of the four statutory classes of Sec. 101.
… signal claims are ineligible for patent protection because they do not fall within any of the four
statutory classes of Sec. 101.
Claims 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because claim 1 is not directed to process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. Claim 1’s “temporal assistant module for monocular 3D object detection” appears to be software/neural network module per se, and the claim does not recite a processor, memory, computer readable medium, apparatus, system, or method steps that would clearly place the claim within a statutory category. Examiner suggests amendment using system, method or non-transitory computer readable medium.
As to claims 2-9, these claims are rejected due to their dependence on claim 1 and are rejected for the same reasons.
CLAIM REJECTIONS - 35 USC § 112
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 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
As to claim 1 claim elements “the temporal assistant module is connected to at least one of a recurrent neural networks module (RNN module), a long short-term memory module (LSTM), and a gated recurrent unit module (GRU module) separately.” is a limitation that invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for the claimed function “the temporal assistant module is connected to at least one of a recurrent neural networks module (RNN module), a long short-term memory module (LSTM), and a gated recurrent unit module (GRU module) separately.”
In this case, the above phrase is unclear to the phrase whether the temporal assistant module is connected to only one selected module, to each of the RNN/LSTM/GRU modules or separately connected to each listed module. The phrase “at least one of … separately” creates ambiguity regarding required structure.
As to claim 1 claim elements “a video frame of a spatio-temporal feature map is processed by the temporal assistant module” is a limitation that invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for the claimed function “a video frame of a spatio-temporal feature map is processed by the temporal assistant module”
In this case, the above phrase is unclear because a “video frame” and a “spatio-temporal feature map” are different types of data. It is unclear whether the temporal assistant module processes a video frame, a feature map derived from a video frame, or a spatio-temporal feature map generated from multiple video frames.
As to claim 1 claim elements “a first connection layer, wherein the hidden state information (Ht-1) at the previous time point is output from the first convolutional 2D layer to the first connection layer, and the input state information (Xt) is output from the second convolutional 2D layer to the first connection layer” is a limitation that invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for the claimed function “a first connection layer, wherein the hidden state information (Ht-1) at the previous time point is output from the first convolutional 2D layer to the first connection layer, and the input state information (Xt) is output from the second convolutional 2D layer to the first connection layer”
In this case, the above phrase is unclear because after processing by the first and second convolutional 2D layers, it is unclear whether the information remains the original “hidden state information” and “input state information” or whether the outputs are transformed feature representations of those inputs.
As to claim 1 claim elements “wherein hidden state information at current time point and output state information at the current time point of the recurrent neural networks module, the long short term memory module (LSTM module), the gated recurrent unit module (GRU module) are adjusted separately by using the temporal assistant module.” is a limitation that invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for the claimed function “wherein hidden state information at current time point and output state information at the current time point of the recurrent neural networks module, the long short term memory module (LSTM module), the gated recurrent unit module (GRU module) are adjusted separately by using the temporal assistant module.”
In this case, the above phrase is unclear because it is unclear what operation constitute “adjusted separately”. It is also unclear whether the limitation applies to the RNN module, LSTM module and GRU module collectively, alternatively or separately. The claim does not clearly define what structure or processing step performs the adjustment or how the adjustment for the RNN, LSTM and GRU embodiments.
As to claim 1 claim elements “thereby enhancing average precision (AP) of auxiliary effect on object being shielded, object moving out of a detection image or small object detection.” is a limitation that invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for the claimed function “thereby enhancing average precision (AP) of auxiliary effect on object being shielded, object moving out of a detection image or small object detection.”
In this case, the above phrase is unclear because “average precision (AP) of auxiliary effect” is unclear. It is also unclear whether the claim requires actual measured AP improvement, what baseline is used, what dataset is used, and whether enhancement is required for all listed cases or any one of them. The phrase appears to state an intended result rather than a clear structural limitation.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph; or
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
As to claims 2-9, these claims are rejected due to their dependence on claim 1 and are rejected for the same reasons.
CONCLUSION
No prior art has been found for claims 1-9 in their current form.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Stephen P Coleman whose telephone number is (571)270-5931. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8AM-5PM.
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.
Stephen P. Coleman
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2675
/STEPHEN P COLEMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2675
Prosecution Insights